Micah 6 : a Parallel Perspective of the Biblical Text

Durham E-Theses

Micah 6 : A Parallel Perspective of the Biblical Text

CONDREA, VASILE,ANDREI

How to cite: CONDREA, VASILE,ANDREI (2012) Micah 6 : A Parallel Perspective of the Biblical Text, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7357/

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:

• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source

• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses

• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk

MICAH 6 A PARALLEL PERSPECTIVE OF THE BIBLICAL TEXT

VASILE ANDREI CONDREA

MA by research Dissertation Thesis Durham University Department of Theology and Religion

2012

This dissertation is the product of my own work, and the work of others has been properly acknowledged throughout.

The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged.

Abbreviations

→ related to textual linguistics: refers to changes from FLC to SLC

↔ related to textual linguistics: refers to continuation forms

A Codex Alexandrinus

B Codex Vaticanus

BA Biblical Aramaic

BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver- Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

Basil Basil the Great

BH Biblical Hebrew

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

Catena Catena group

Cyril Cyril of Alexandria

FLC first level of communication

IMP Imperative

L Lucianic recension

Chrysostom John Chrysostom

Las Fragmenta Sangallensia

L-S H. George Liddell, R. Scott, P. G. W. Glare, and A. A. Thompson, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

LXX Septuagint

M Codex Marchalianus

MT Massoretic Text

PL Plural

SG Singular

SLC second level of communication

SNC simple nominal sentence

Theodore Theodore of Mopsuestia

Theodoret Theodoret of Cyr

Theophylact Theophylact of Acrida

TL textual linguistic

V Codex Venetus

W Codex Washington

ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Contents

Abbreviations ...... 3 Introduction ...... 6 1. Literature review on Micah 6 ...... 9 2.1. Hebrew Syntax and Alviero Niccacci’s Proposal ...... 18 2.1.1 Negations ...... 22 2.1.2. Main features of poetry ...... 23 2.1.3. Conclusion ...... 25 2.2. Text-critical Analysis of MT Micah 6...... 26 2.3.1. Syntactical Commentary on MT Micah 6 ...... 41 2.3.2. Translations of Micah 6 ...... 51 2.3.3. Conclusions ...... 61 2.4. Poetic devices in MT Micah 6 ...... 62 2.4.1. Poetic devices ...... 62 2.4.2. Conclusion ...... 70 2.5.1. Commentary on Micah MT 6 ...... 72 2.5.2. Division of Micah 6 ...... 72 2.5.3. Verse 1-8 ...... 74 2.5.4. Verses 9-16 ...... 80 3. Text-critical Analysis of LXX Micah 6 ...... 85 3.1. Conclusion ...... 111 4. Textual-linguistic Analysis: Targum Micah 6 ...... 116 4.1. Verbal system in Biblical Aramaic ...... 118 4.1.2. Narrative texts ...... 118 4.1.3. Direct speech ...... 119 4.2. Micah 6 Targum ...... 121 4.3. What type of translation is the Targumic version of Micah 6? ...... 132 4.4. Conclusion ...... 138 5. Final Discussion and Conclusions ...... 139 ANNEX 1: Scheme of Syntactical Construct in Biblical Hebrew ...... 151 ANNEX 2: Micah 6 Syntactical Scheme ...... 153 ANNEX 3: Poetic devices Micah 6:1-8 ...... 155 ANNEX 4: Poem division Micah 6 ...... 156 ANNEX 5: Scheme of Syntactical Construct in Biblical Aramaic ...... 157 ANNEX 6: Synoptic View of MT and BA Syntactical Forms ...... 158 ANNEX 7: Micah 6 - Tabulation ...... 160

Introduction

Micah’s name means ‘Who is like YHWH’1 and refers to the author of the fourth book in the scroll of the Twelve Minor Prophets2. This name appears several times in the Bible but only two of them (Jer. 26:18 and Mic. 1:1) contain the localisation ‘of Moresheth’, which is a village in the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The superscription of his book tells us that he acted ‘in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah’ and his preaching concerned Samaria and Jerusalem.3 In the final form the Book of Micah presents an alternation between prophecies of judgement (1:2-2:11; 3:1-12; 5:14-7:7) and salvation (2:12-13; 4:1-5:13; 7:8-20).4

The aim of this dissertation thesis is to offer a parallel presentation of the sixteen verses of the sixth chapter from the Book of Micah. The main focus will be on analysing these particular verses as they were handed to us in the Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX) and in the Targum.

Two main tools are selectively used in this analysis. Both in the MT and LXX, Micah 6 raises many questions regarding the interpretation of particular forms because of their ambiguity or their obscure meaning. Consequently, a main focus of this research dissertation will be on searching for the original text of the MT and LXX. This particular analysis will offer the critical text which I believe is the closest copy of their Vorlage. Both these textual traditions will be separately analysed as they have been proven to be representative and self-standing in the history of the transmission of the biblical text. Given the fact that the textual criticism for the Aramaic Targums of the

1 James Luther Mays, Micah: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1976), p. 1. 2 I. Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, London: Doubleday, 2000), p. 6. 3 A pertinent evaluation of superscriptions in the Book of the Twelve is available in G. M. Tucker, 'Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon', in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, ed. George W. Coats and Burke O. Long (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), p. 56-70; J. D. W. Watts, 'Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve', in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, ed. James Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), p. 110-124. 4 Marc Leroy, La formation du livre des quatre: Création théologico-littéraire en Juda durant l’époque néo-babylonienne (Jerusalem: École Biblique, [course support] 2011), p. 97.

Bible is a rather young discipline, this study will not venture into such uncharted territory.5

The second research tool is represented by the employment of the textual-linguistic syntactical analysis, a method which stems from Harald Weinrich’s research on modern languages. The principles of his syntactical theory were applied to Biblical Hebrew by Alviero Niccacci6 and later on by Paolo Messina for Biblical Aramaic.7 The present research will perform this type of analysis on Micah 6 MT and Targum but not on the Septuagint source, as this task would exceed the objectives of this dissertation.

The outline of this research comprises five chapters focused on the three main sources. The first chapter offers a detailed account of the history of research on the Book of Micah. The presentation covers all the modern history of research starting with Ewald, Stade and Wellhausen, the main promoters of the historical-critical method in the nineteenth century, and continuing with E. Ben-Zvi and Bruce Waltke in modern times. The account highlights problems connected with the person of the prophet Micah, the dating of his book, division, solutions to textual problems and influential commentaries.

The MT will be the subject discussed in chapter two, which will be divided in five parts. Prior to the actual textual analysis, (1) the history of the textual-linguistic method will be described starting with H. Weinrich’s basic assumptions followed by A. Niccacci’s presentation of this method. The thesis will continue with the exposition of (2) the textual critical analysis. Once the main textual and morphological difficulties are dealt with, the (3) the syntactical commentary (using the textual-linguistic method) and a brief review of the translation proposed by major scholars of Micah will follow. The last two parts will engage in (4) an analysis of the poetic devices and a (5) commentary of the MT text as a whole.

5 One of the recent contributions on textual criticism for the Targum is constituted by the latest book of Ahuva Ho, The Targum of Zephaniah: Manuscripts and Commentary (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009). 6 Alviero Niccacci, Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 23, 1986). (English translation: Alviero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (Sheffield: JSOT Press, JSOTSS 86, 1990)). Biblical Hebrew Poetry received special attention over the years in his research which was condensed in Alviero Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, ed. S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurviz (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Press, 2006). 7 Paolo Messina, 'Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico: Un approccio linguistico‒testuale', in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, ed. Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011), pp. 221-256.

The third chapter will be dedicated to the Septuagint as an equally important witness for the transmission of the Bible. The short excursus on the research history of the Septuagint will be followed by a detailed textual analysis of the major Greek manuscripts, as they are recorded in the critical edition of J. Ziegler with reference to the Rahlfs and Swete editions of the Septuagint when needed.8 The rest of the chapter will concentrate on presenting differences between the MT and LXX and determining what the text is saying in the Greek form.

The Aramaic Targum witness of Micah 6 is the concern of the next chapter which starts with an exposition of the Biblical Aramaic verbal system according to the textual- linguistic method. The presentation proceeds with its application to the proposed text. The last part of this chapter concerns the main differences between the MT and Targum in Micah 6 introduced by a general account of the Targum as translation.

The last chapter offers an outline of the most interesting findings of this research along with general conclusion about the textual-linguistic method.

8 Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967); Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); Henry Barclay Swete, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: University Press, 1905).

1. Literature review on Micah 6

History of research and interpretation is the first step in understanding the implications and the meaning of the ancient texts. This presentation will evaluate the scholarly research looking into the exegetical methods and their results. It will focus on problems related to the dating of the book of Micah, division and coherence of the book. Historical realities in which this book was written are important to the interpretation of the linguistic setting and its theological themes.

The Book of Micah has received a great deal of attention in the scholarly research starting with Heinrich Ewald, Julius Wellhausen and Bernhardt Stade in the nineteenth century. Their exegetical commentaries influence most of the later research.9

Ewald (1867) is the first one to propose a division and a dating of the Book of Micah. He supposes that the book is divided in two parts. The first five chapters are the work of Micah himself, while chapters 6 and 7 are a later addition during the reign of Manasseh. He observes that Micah is similar in theological themes and language with Jeremiah, Habakkuk and Psalms. He points out that Micah 6-7 is ‘a prophetic piece, structured and executed in a purely dramatic manner’.10 His opinion on the dating and division of the last Micah 6 are shared by Wellhausen11 and Stade.12 They also propose that the last two chapters are to be divided in two parts. Micah 6:1-7:6 is dated in the time of Manasseh, while Micah 7:6-20 is either an exilic composition (Wellhausen) or a post- exilic addition (Stade). Drawing on the idea that during the reign of Manasseh child

9 My presentation of the work of Ewald, Welhausen, Stade, Marti and von Hoonaker is based on Kenneth H. Cuffey, The Coherence of Micah: A Review of the Proposals and a New Interpretation (Doctoral Thesis: Drew University, 1987), pp. 6-26. 10 Heinrich A. von Ewald, Die Dichter des Alten Bundes, ol. 2 ( ttingen: andenhoeck uprecht, 1866), p. 527. 11 Julius Wellhausen, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878), pp. 425-426. 12 Bernhard Stade has presented his view on the Book of Micah in two articles that appeared in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft: Bernhard Stade, 'Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha', ZAW 1 (1881)and Bernhard Stade, 'Streiflichter auf die Entstehung der jetzigen Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Prophetenschriften', ZAW 23 (1903), as a part of a debate with W. Novack regarding the origin of Micah 1-3 and 4-5. Later, Stade has completed his description of the Book of Micah in Bernhard Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Berlin: Grote, 1888).

9 sacrifice was a regular custom, Stade argues for the dating of Micah 6 in this historical period.13

In the following years, the opinions are much divided. While Karl Marti (1904) argues that Micah 6 was not composed until exilic times14, Albin van Hoonaker (1908) believes that Micah 6-7 was written after 722 and relates to the fall of Samaria.15

The research on Micah becomes more specialized as the authors tend to dedicate entire articles and monographs to its interpretation. Nevertheless, the proposals are very different and often contradictory.

For example, Paul Haupt divides the Book of Micah into ten poems. He asserts that the last four chapters of Micah have southern origins and are composed of five poems called ‘a Maccabean appendix’. Micah 6 is divided between poems V (A: 6:2-4a, 6, 16 and B: 6:9, 12, 10-11, 13-14b, dated 170-100 BC) and X (6, 6-8, dated 100 BC). The verses 6, 1, 4b-5, 15 are ‘secondary glosses’ of the text. He thinks that verse 5 was originally ‘ emember how your fathers were marvellously helped from Shittim to ilgal’, but it was omitted because of the repetition of the word ‘remember’.16 with ‘as a guilt offering of my חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי Regarding verse 9 he translates the literary ’is translated ‘the fruit of my belly/womb פְרִׁ יבִׁטְנִׁי soul’, relating to a capital crime and .v) לִׁשְרֵ קָה cf. Deut 7:13, 28:4,11; 30:9; Ps. 132: 11). The literal translation of the word) 16) is hissing but it refers to the action of whistling (p. 36). The omission of the act of anointing was a sign of mourning, cf. Dan 10, 3 (p. 36). He also presents an historical context for Omri and Ahab (pp. 33-34).

On the other hand, Burkitt considers Micah 6-7 a Northern prophecy. He supports his theory with several arguments. While there is no mention of Zion or Jerusalem, all other names are references to the geography and names of the North (Carmel, Bashan, Gilead, Gilgal, Omri, and Ahab). Moreover, Micah 6:6-8 fits with the atmosphere of the tribes settled in on the land of Israel after the deportation of Israel (2 Kings 17:23-41). He

13 Stade, 'Streiflichter auf die Entstehung der jetzigen Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Prophetenschriften', 1903, pp. 164-171 and Stade, 1888, p. 632. 14 Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton ( bingen: Mohr, 190 ), pp. 258-259. 15 Albin van Hoonaker, Les douze petits prophèts (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1908), pp. 351-353. 16 Paul Haupt, 'The Book of Micah', The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 27 (1910), p. 35.

10 considers that these settlers were willing to fulfil all kinds of worship, including the sacrifice of the first‒born child.17

John Merlin Powis Smith (1911, reprinted in 1974) starts his commentary on 6:1-8 with a short introduction which divides the poem in two parts. The first part (6:1-5) is composed of four strophes (vv. 1, 2, 3, and 4-5), while the second (6:6-8) has three (6, 7, 8). He offers a textual analysis and literary analysis commenting also on the recent research history. The first part contains the case of Yahweh against Israel his people continued in the second part which outlines the ‘nature of Yahweh’s requirements’.18 The whole poem reaches a climactic point in verse 8 with the proclamation of the core requirements of the Law. Verses 6:9-16 is divided between denouncing the sins (strophe 1 (verses 9 and 12) and 2 (verses 10-11)) and the doom oracles (strophes 3 (verse 13 and 14b) and 4 (verses 14a and 15)), while verse 16 represents a summary.

G. W. Anderson comments only on Micah 6:9. His article states that the faith of the prophets was the proper answer to the righteous deeds of God towards his people in vv. 3-4 a play on words used הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך/הֶלְאֵתִׁיָך Micah 6:4). He considers the succession) to avoid the arguments that the people might present in their defence. He asserts that sin is not merely a transgression of the Law, but a ‘rebellion’ against od. Calling to the debate the ends of the earth, the prophet reminds his adversaries that God is also the Creator. In the last part, he comments on the three commandments of v. 8.19

In the next two decades the research on the Book of Micah advances with the commentaries of Renaud, Anderson, Mays, Clark, Hillers, Alfaro and Wolff. The full development of the historical-critical method, the discoveries of the Dead Sea scrolls, and linguistic advancements give a broader image of Micah’s historical setting, language and theological themes.

In the introduction of ‘La formation du Livre de Michée’, Renaud states two main questions of the book of Micah: the structure and the elements that are of non-authentic origin. Chapter 6 is divided into two sections: 1-8 and 9-16. In the first section there are

17 F. C. Burkitt, 'Micah 6 and 7 a Northern Prophecy', Journal of Biblical Literature 45, No. 1-2 (1926), pp. 159-161. 18 John Merlin Powis Smith, William Hayes Ward, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1928), p. 123. 19 W. Anderson, 'A Study of Micah 6:1-8', Scottish Journal of Theology 4 (1951), pp. 191-197.

11 some remarks on the translation of the text, the unity of the section, literary form, the unity of the theological development and the origin of the section (deuteronomistic similarities, its Sitz im Leben, date and authenticity). The second section starts with remarks on the translation, the structure of Micah 6:9-16 with a certain regard to redactional interventions, date and authenticity, and a conclusion for the section and for the whole chapter.20

J. L. Mays wrote a commentary on Micah in The Old Testament Library series. In the introduction, he presents the form of the book, explains who is Micah the Moreshite and the formation of the book. After a brief list of the books written about Micah (pp. 34- 39), he proceeds with a commentary by sections of the entire book. Chapter 6 is divided into 3 sections: (a) od’s Salvation and its justification (1-5); (b) It is you, not something, God wants (6-8); (c) Guilt and punishment under the covenant (9-16).21 Each chapter follows a fixed pattern: first he gives his own translation of the MT text with LXX differences, followed by a general presentation of the language, style, formal structure and literary types. The commentary ends with a verse-by-verse analysis (grammar, syntax, explanation of translation problems, commentary of the characters and theological themes).

Delbert R. Hillers writes a commentary on Micah in the Hermeneia series. He discusses the general form of the Book of Micah with a special section on its poetic form, comments on the parallel with Jeremiah 26 and then proceeds with the commentary by sections. Chapter 6 has two sections: (a) Covenant Lawsuit: The Whole Duty of Mankind (1-8); and (b) A Curse on the Cheating City (9-16). His presentation starts with his translation of the MT text and grammatical notes on the parallels found in the LXX and Murabbaʽat texts and proceeds with a commentary on the ideas of every section.22

Dawes’s article is focused on Micah 6:8. He draws the attention to the fact that since Anderson’s article, there have been authors (Hillers, Allen, enaud) who argue that the is not ‘walk humbly with your וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִׁם־אֱֹלהֶיָך translation of the Hebrew expression od’, but ‘walk wisely/circumspectly’, as it appears in NEB. He extends Anderson’s

20 Bernard Renaud, La formation du Livre de Michée: tradition et actualisation (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977). 21 Mays, 1976, p. 127-142. 22 Delbert Hillers, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).

12 research and concludes that ‘walk humbly’ is the appropriate rendering of the MT expression.23

The International Theological Commentary series aims to pass from the critical- historical approach of the Old Testament to a theological interpretation for ministers and Christian education. With this aim in mind, Juan I. Alfaro offers a presentation of the Jewish context because its traditions are important for the understanding of the texts. The second objective is to present the message of Micah ‘with sound theological ideas’. In the introduction, he speaks about the author and about the message, unity and structure of the book. He rejects the division of Micah’s prophecies in alternating oracles of doom and hope, following the divisions of the Book as proposed by Allen and Alonso Schokel in their commentary on the Prophets.24

Alfaro’s commentary of Micah 6 commences with a presentation of the theories of O. Eissfeld,25 A. S. van der Woude,26 Bruce Vawter,27 and then offers a theological commentary, focusing on the following terms: rîb; sacrifice versus personal conversion; synthesis of the doctrine of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah; and sin of the people. 28

23 S. B. Dawes, 'Walking Humbly: Micah 6:8 Revisited', Scottish Journal of Theology 41 (1988), pp. 331- 39. 24 Juan I. Alfaro, Justice and Loyalty: A Commentary on the Book of Micah (Grand Rapids & Edinburgh: Eerdmans & Handsel Press, 1989), pp. 11-12; cf. Luis Alonso Sch kel and J. L. Sicre Diaz, Profetas (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1980): Alonso Sch kel proposes a structure from the point of view of the main theological themes. This theological view divides the Book of Micah into two sections: (a) The Theophany of God and Its Consequences (c. 1-5); and (b) The Judgment of God (6-7). Chapters 6 and 7 in this setting are closely connected: (a) Summons and accusation of ingratitude (6, 1-5); (b) Rejection of empty ritual and demand of justice and loyalty (6, 6-8); (c) There is no justice (6, 9-16); (d) There is no loyalty (7, 1-6); (e) Acceptance of divine retribution, acknowledgment of sin, and certainty of pardon (7, 7-20) (see Alfaro, 1989, pp. 11-12). 25 Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966). Eissfeldt shares the opinion of Stade and Welhausen about the division of the last chapters of Micah into two (6:1-7:6 and 7:7-20). He thinks that Micah 6:1-8 is ‘an impressive judgement speech’ divided into four parts: introduction (vv.1-2); Yahweh speech (3-5); Israel speech (6-7); and prophetic exhortation (8) (p. 409). Micah 6:9-16 is a diatribe against Samaria, not Jerusalem which leads him to the conclusion that the passage dates from the period before 721 (p. 411). 26 In his article, A. S. van der Woude, 'Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo‒Prophets', Vetus Testamentum 19, No. 2 (1969), pp. 244-260, claims that the last chapters are written by another prophet than Micah from the Northern Kingdom based on several reasons: the influence of Isaiah; geographical and historical reference to the north; reflection on Exodus and Conquest; and addressing the society as a whole. 27 Bruce Vawter, Amos, Hosea, Micah (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981), p. 159: Vawter asserts that Micah 6:1-8 comes from the prophet himself because he is using formulas and traditional liturgical language specific to his time. Also, he considers this passage as ‘the best and the most complete exemplification in the prophetic literature of the rîb’. 28 Alfaro, 1989, pp. 62-73.

Wolff’s commentary on Micah29 was published for the first time in 198230 and translated by G. Stansell in 1990.31 The introduction speaks about the period, about the ‘Man Micah’, the language of the book, its message, the book itself (the general division) and the literature that comments on it.

Referring to the message of Micah, Wolff divides it into four parts: (a) 1-3: the ‘original message’ - guilt and judgment of Samaria, Judah and Jerusalem (which contains six interpolations);32 (b) 4-5: future salvation for Jerusalem and Israel; (c) 6:1-7:7: later prophetic voices which supplement the Book of Micah with admonitions, judgement speeches, and laments; (d) 7:8-20: the liturgical community speaks. Historically, Wolff considers that Micah has a long redaction history which starts in pre-exilic times when the first three chapters were written (Deuteronomistic commentaries, interpolations and ‘liturgical introit’). Chapters 4-5 accumulate sayings from prophets of salvation after the exile. The first five chapters of Micah underwent a general redaction in connection with the lamentation over the fall of Jerusalem which, at a later time, receives the final redaction from a social-critical point of view (6:2-7:7).

Chapter 6 is divided into 2 parts (1-8: ‘Walk attentively with your God’ and 9-16: ‘The Deceiver’). His commentary opens with a translation, comparison with the LXX and grammatical notes, form criticism, the setting of the verses (redaction history) and commentary verse by verse. Every part closes with a ‘Purpose and hrust’ section which concerns the theological implications.

In the introduction of his commentary on Micah, McKane presents an outline of the Book of Micah, its redaction history and Sitz im Leben. His work contains also a discussion of the textual variants of MT, LXX, Targum, Peshitta and the Vulgate. Chapter 6 of Micah is divided into three parts: (a) Yahweh takes Israel to court (1-5); (b) Yahweh’s requirements are justice, mercy and humility (6-8); (c) Yahweh threatens the city (9-16).33

29 Hans W. Wolff, Micah: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990). 30 Hans W. Wolff, Micha (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982). 31 He also wrote a monograph on Micah: Gary Stansell, Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition Historical Comparison (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). 32 Wolff, 1990, pp. 18-19. 33 William McKane, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), pp. 177-206.

In 2000, F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman published a commentary on Micah in the Anchor Bible series. Their commentary starts with a presentation of the texts and translations of Micah, its place in the Book of the Twelve and presentation of the literary units.34

Chapter 6 of Micah is divided into two parts: (a) Yahweh’s covenant dispute 6:1-8 (Yahweh’s indictment 1-5; Israel’s response 6-7; Yahweh’s remedy 8); (b) More accusations and Covenant curses 6:9-16 (More accusations 9-12; Covenant curses 13- 16).35

On the first section, their commentary begins with a translation of the MT and LXX with grammatical notes. It talks about the ‘constituents of Micah 6’, the drama of Micah 6:1-8, the literary genre, its poetry, notes (verse by verse) and then a general comment on the passage 6:1-8. Also, it contains an Excursus on the human sacrifice (religious background, biblical evidence, relationship with Gen 22, Judges 11 and the modern critical interpretation).

Ben Zvi’s research on Micah aims to provide a form-critical commentary.36 In the short introduction, the author presents the general structure of Micah. Pointing out its sophistication, he believes it has textual coherence. His commentary is focused on the social setting in the ancient Near East as reflected in the relationship between the patron and client.37 The commentary on Micah 638 follows a strict plan for each of the sections (a) Structure and its explanation; (b) Genre of each section (6, 1-8 rîb; announcement of judgment 6:9-16); (c) Settings (6:1-8: to whom it is addressed, localization, liturgical or not for; 6:9-16: not necessarily a northern view, it may well be the explanation of the fall of the monarchic Jerusalem); (d) Intention (general purpose of 6:8: to ‘inculcate the

34 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, pp. 33-99: Andersen divides the Book of Micah into three literary units: Book of doom 1: 2-3:12; Book of Visions 4:1-5:14; Book of Contention and Conciliation 6-7. The introduction is followed by an exhaustive bibliographical list on Micah. 35 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, pp. 502-560. 36 Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000). 37 This relationship has been portrayed in two articles by Ray T. Hobbs, 'Reflections on Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations', Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997) and Pete N. Lemche, 'Kings and Clients: On Loyalty Between the Ruler and the Ruled in Ancient 'Israel'', Semeia 66 (1994). 38 Chapter 6 begins a section of the book called ‘A final set of prophetic readings’ (6:1-7:17) divided into four parts: (a) Prophetic-didactic reading about divinely ordained behaviour (6:1-8); (b) Prophetic reading explaining the reasons for divine judgment against the monarchic ‘city’ (6:9-16); (c) Reading expressing trust in Yahweh despite and in response to social disintegration 7:1-7; (d) Reading conveying a confirmation of Yahweh’s relationship to Judah/Zion in spite of its low worldly status 7:7-17.

15 teaching expressed in 6:8’ (p.152), while 6:9-16 tries to explain the fall of Jerusalem (p. 164)39); (e) Bibliography.

‘ he conceptual coherence of the Book of Micah’ is a monograph written by Mignon R. Jacobs in the JSOT Supplement Series. The main focus of research is to question the book’s unity/coherence.40 After a methodological part (pp. 46-57), chapter 3 offers a presentation of the macro-structure of the Book of Micah. She presents the other researcher’s proposal on the macro-structure of the book and then outlines hers. The two-fold macro-structure41 follows that of Ewald (accepted also by Mays,42 and Hagstrom43). Micah 6:1-8 contains the second dispute against Israel (Introduction – summons to hear 6:1-2; Argumentation 6:3-7; Resolution – 6:8). The last part (6:9-7:20) concerns Israel’s fate, focusing on his present judgement (6:9-7:6) and on his future prospects of hope (7:7 – 20).

In ‘A commentary on Micah’, Waltke aims to determine the book’s historical context (syntax, meaning, figures of speech, rhetorical techniques and literary form) and to propose an interpretation for the contemporary church. There are two main parts: introduction and commentary. In the introduction, the author includes a presentation of the prophet, historical background, date and authorship, form and structure, text and a selected bibliography. The discussion of the text observes a predefined pattern: translation (based on his ‘Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax’),44 exegesis and

39 He agrees with Renaud, 1977, p. 342. 40 Mignon R. Jacobs, The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). The author offers in her introduction a view of the history of research: Ewald (1876); Stade (1881 and 1883); Smith (1911); Lindblom (1929); Weiser (1961); Renaud (1964); Willis (1966); Lescow (1972); Allen (1976); Mays (1976); Wolff (1982, 1990); Hagstrom (1982, 1988); Hillers (1984); Luker (1985); Cuffey (1987); Stansell (1988); Shaw (1993). She provides a table with the authors, sources of coherence and criteria for discerning coherence. In a later article she updates the history of research on Micah: Mignon R. Jacobs, 'Bridging the Times: Trends in Micah Studies since 1985', Currents in Biblical Research 4, No. 3 (2006), pp 293-329. 41 Following Mignon, Micah is shaped in two disputes: First Dispute (1:2-5:14) and Second Dispute 6:1- 7:20, introduced by the superscription (1:1). 42 Mays, 1976, p. 4-12. 43 David G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 23. 44 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

16 exposition.45 Chapter 6 is divided into two parts: Israel is accused of breaking the Covenant (6:1-8) and The Covenant curses fulfilled on Jerusalem (6:9-16).

Another important contribution to the research of Micah is that proposed by Alviero Niccacci.46 His proposal stems from his theory regarding the Hebrew verbal system presented in ‘The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew prose’. After a brief introduction, he offers an Italian translation and then proceeds with a philological commentary with a special interest in the dynamic and sense of the phrase.

45 Bruce K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids, London: Eerdmans, 2007). His commentary is divided into a three-fold structure or ‘cycles’: I ‘God gathers the elect remnant into Jerusalem’ (1:2- 2:13); ‘God restores Jerusalem’s Former Dominion to the Purified Remnant’ (3:1-5:1 ); ‘God forgives the remnant of his sinful people’ (6:1-7:2). 46 Alviero Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', Liber Annuus 57 (2007).

2.1. Hebrew Syntax and Alviero Niccacci’s Proposal

Textual-linguistics represents a method of syntax championed by Harald Weinrich who considers that a syntactical evaluation should come from the analysis of the verbal forms ‘integrated into a temporal paradigm’. 47 This process involves a study of the phoneme, morpheme and lexeme of the text. This does not involve the classic division of time past-present-future, but it has to derive from the communication process (speaker-listener). A key word here is ‘textual tense’ which means that any text has a before and an after which encloses the message. 48

One of the first attempts to employ this textual linguistic model on the Biblical Hebrew was W. Schneider in his Grammatik des biblischen Hebraisch, Claudius, Munchen, 1974. Schneider’s book was discussed by E. alstra in two articles,49 where he stressed the importance of semantics in any syntactical analysis.

Alviero Niccacci proves the feasibility of this method50 by putting together the emphasis on the morphological and linguistic principles (W. Schneider’s main concern) and semantic principles (Talstra). His proposal studies the prose and the poetic passages separately, as the poetic passages follow their own syntactical rules. His approach is synchronic and looks at the use of the verb as found in the present state of the text regardless of its diachronic status.

Niccacci is fully aware that a syntactical analysis of any kind of text requires a precise definition of what ‘text’ means. He adapts Weinrich’s definition of a text in his syntactical commentary of Malachi51 (the square brackets represent his additions): ‘A text is a logical (i. e intelligible and consistent) sequence of linguistic signs [particularly the wayyiqtol in BH], placed between two significant breaks in communication [i. e.

47 Harald Weinrich, Tempus. Le funzioni dei tempi nel testo (Bologna: Societa Editrice il Mulino, 1978), p. 14; [German title:Harald Weinrich, Tempus: Besprochene und er hlte Welt (2nd edition; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971)]. 48 Weinrich, 1978, p. 77. 49 E. Talstra, 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory', BiOr 35 (1978), pp. 169-74; and 'Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. II: Syntax and Semantics', BiOr 39 (1982), pp. 26-38. 50 For a full list of his research publications see . Claudio Bottini, 'Scheda bio‒bibliografica di Alviero Niccacci', in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, ed. Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni erra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011), pp. 16-29. 51 Alviero Niccacci, 'Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi', Liber Annuus 51 (2001), p. 57; cf. Weinrich, 1978, p. 14.

18 waw-x-qatal, or other non-verbal construction in BH]’. A correct delimitation of the text is the first step of syntactical analysis.

In Weinrich’s view the verbal forms and temporal indicators (like adverbs) have the most prominent place. 52 A careful scrutiny of any text shows that ‘in almost all texts […] either one or other tense clearly dominates, either one or other group of tenses, forming a strong majority of the temporal forms there present.’ enses can be divided into (1) discourse or comment tenses (present-present perfect-future, most often with the first and second person), and (2) narrative tenses (imperfect-simple past/past perfect- conditional, usually in third person).53 In reading them, the translator should be aware in the former case that ‘this is a text that comments’, while in the latter that ‘this is a text that narrates’. 54 This difference has the specific purpose of shedding light on the tension that the message is carrying: if it uses discourse tenses than the text has a ‘perspective of tension’, while if it uses narrative tenses its perspective is of distension. These two positions are together called ‘linguistic attitude’. 55 In practical terms for Aramaic and Hebrew, this linguistic attitude has resulted in discrimination between narrative texts and direct speech passages.56 The chart presents the verbal forms for the two groups and their correspondence in the basic axes of time.57

TEMPORAL AXIS GROUP I ‘DISCOURSE’ GROUP II ‘NARRATIVE’

PRESENT PRESENT IMPERFECT

PAST CONTINUOUS

PAST PRESENT PERFECT SIMPLE PAST

PAST PERFECT

FUTURE FUTURE CONDITIONAL

The syntactical evaluation of any poetic material has its basis in the use of the tenses in the direct speech passages. Niccacci’s presentation of syntax covers three perspectives: temporal axis, type of functions (groups I and II) and syntactical relation (first level of

52 Weinrich, 1978, p. 19. 53 Weinrich, 1978, p. 23. 54 Weinrich, 1978, p. 37. 55 Weinrich, 1978, p. 44. The key words here perspective and linguistic attitude refer to what Niccacci explains in Ch. 7 ‘ ense Shift’; cf. Niccacci, 1990, p. 112. 56 Cf. Niccacci, 1990, p. 19. 57 The diagram is present in Niccacci, 1990, p. 19. The addition of PAST CONTINUOUS is mine.

19 communication or coordination versus second level of communication/background or subordination).

The Hebrew verbal system works with five verbal forms: qatal, weqatal, yiqtol, weyiqtol and wayyiqtol. hese are translated, as Niccacci points out, ‘by all the tenses in the modern languages, by every mood (except IMP and wayyiqtol) and by both aspects and ‘modes of actions’ (complete or incomplete)’.58 This syntactical approach has as a basic rule: these five verbal forms each have their own value. For example, weqatal is not the coordinate or inverted form for qatal; rather, the weqatal is the continuation of the x-yiqtol for the future indicative.

Due to the fact that poetic passages are closer in organisation to items in Group I, this outline will present a syntactical relation in direct speech, the narrative part being left aside. The syntax of narrative passages is less complex and its configuration is more predictable. This syntactical outline can be seen in Annex 1.

On the temporal axis of the past, any given narration starts with an x-qatal or a simple qatal (with no effect on the syntax) followed by wayyiqtol so as to present the coordinative relation (successive information). The wayyiqtol may well be followed by another sequential wayyiqtol↔wayyiqtol, which bears the name of ‘narrative sequence’, presenting pieces of information chronologically, on the main line of communication.59 When the author presents background information or a second level of communication, the tense adopts one of the following four verbal forms: x-qatal (non-successive information, specific information), Simple Nominal Clause (SNC – with no verb, concomitant information), x-yiqtol and weqatal.

58 Niccacci, 1990, p. 17. A small glossary of the technical terms employed is offered by W. G. E. Watson in the translation [p. 14]. Most of them are taken from Weinrich: ‘comment in the guise of narrative: narrazione commentativa; degree zero: grado zero (Nullstufe); narrative comment/discourse: commento/discorso narrativo; past perfect: trapassato; present perfect: passato prossimo; prominence: messa in rilievo (Reliefgebung); another possible equivalent is ‘salience’; simple past: passato prossimo; tense shift: transizione temporale (Tempus-Übergang); two-member syntactic construction: schema sintattico a due membri; volitive: volitivo, also possible would be ‘volitional’’. 59 Niccacci, 'Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi', 2001, p. 56.

As a general rule for all temporal axes, the time shift from the main level of communication to the background does not imply a syntactical division, but rather a ‘pause’ either in the narrative (if we are talking about the axis of the past) or in the discourse. he regent and its subordinate clauses are an ‘indivisible syntactical unit’.60 Also, there are special cases when wayyiqtol61 can be a form of continuation on the SLC only after x-qatal on the SLC.

On the temporal axis of the present, the direct speech starts with a SNC (simple nominal cause) which follows the predicate – subject sequence. At this point the syntax of the phrase influences the syntactical relations in the clause: so as to preserve the predicate-subject sequence, the syntactical analysis of the SNC would identify as predicate any given morphological form that occupies the first position in the phrase (substantive, pronoun, question, etc.) The subordination of the present tense is made possible through a SNC, but this time through a subject-predicate sequence.

On the temporal axis of the future, there is a clear distinction between future indicative (referring to the actual future) and future volitive (which denotes an order or some other form of will implication).

The future indicative has two types of initiation and a single type of continuation (or coordination). A future indicative sentence may be initiated either with SNC (usually with participle), either with x-yiqtol; and the coordination form is weqatal for both initial forms. The subordination in the future tense is introduced through x-yiqtol.

Future volitive can be introduced either by an (1) IMP or by (2) an x-yiqtol cohortative/jussive or yiqtol cohortative or jussive, while the coordination form is weyiqtol. The subordination is introduced through x-IMP in the first case or x-yiqtol in the second case. In addition, there are two frequent constructions in the future volitive:

a. IMP with weqatal – (syntactically the future volitive [regent] passes to the future indicative [subordinate clause]) which must be translated as an order followed by a consequence (introduced by: thus, that is why, therefore, whereupon). The

60 Niccacci, 'Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi', 2001, p. 57. 61 This feature of wayyiqtol is discussed in Niccacci, 1990, pp. 48 and 176. Cf. 2 Sam. 28:3; 2 Kgs. 12:10b-12; Job 1:2-3.

weqatal is not on the main level of communication, because the normal continuation for IMP is weyiqtol.

b. IMP with weyiqtol – (two coordinated constructions in the future volitive) which should be translated as an order followed by a final clause (so that, in order to).

Consequently, the volitive future has three constructs which can initiate the discourse: IMP, x-yiqtol or jussive/cohortative62 yiqtol. While for the IMP there is no room for confusion regarding to which temporal axis it belongs, this is not the case with yiqtol and x-yiqtol.

Sometimes jussive yiqtol is distinct from indicative yiqtol, as the first one may have an jussive)). Nevertheless, this) יְהִׁי or יָקֹם/(indicative) יִׁהְיֶה or יָקּום .abbreviated form (cf distinction is not always apparent, so the weyiqtol is important when one has to decide to which temporal axis an initial yiqtol form belongs: (1) If it is followed by an weqatal, the discourse refers to the future indicative. (2) If the yiqtol has weyiqtol as an continuation form, it conveys information about the future volitive. The other way of yiqtol for ֹלא :differentiating them is revealed by the negations in the continuation form yiqtol for jussive/cohortative for future volitive forms. 63 אל ,the future indicative forms

Moreover, it is clear that the initial yiqtol (FLC) cannot refer to a future indicative temporal axis (as the normal initiation is x-yiqtol). But this is not the case with SLC x- yiqtols. The most difficult is to determin whether an waw-x-yiqtol is a volitive or an indicative future form. The examples provided by Niccacci (Gen. 43:11-14; Ex. 10:24; Ex. 19:21-22) lead to the conclusion that only when x-yiqtol is ‘proceeded by one of the direct volitive forms’ it refers to a future volitive function (in foreground or background). 64

2.1.1 Negations Another important aspect of Niccacci’s syntactical approach is his treatment of negative forms. There are corresponding negations for each of the five verbal forms (qatal, weqatal, yiqtol, weyiqtol and wayyiqtol). They have the same value for the syntax as their positive correspondents. Negative forms are not necessarily the negation of the

62 Both terms refer to terms conveying an order or an exhortation: jussive refers to 2nd and 3rd person singular/plural and cohortative denotes 1st person singular/plural. 63 Cf. Niccacci, 1990, p. 76. 64 Niccacci, 1990, p. 78-81. He differentiates between direct volitive forms (jussive, cohortative and imperative) and indirect ones (weyiqtol). The weyiqtol forms are presented in § 61-64, pp. 88-94.

qatal. In the next לא yiqtol, not לא positive form. For example the negation for weqatal is few lines I will give the corresponding negative forms proposed by Niccacci:

qatal. Wayyiqtol appears in narrative passages or in ולא The negation of wayyiqtol is (1) direct speech (past) on the main level of communication, and may be followed by a .qatal on the same level of communication+ולא

(2) The x-qatal (either in narrative passages (background), or in direct speech qatal as negation. In direct speech the negation of the-לא-background)) has (waw-) x) .qatal-ֹלא initial65 (x)-qatal is

yiqtol when it refers to forms in the-לא-3A) The x-yiqtol has as negation (waw-) x) narrative passages or in the future indicative (direct speech), on SLC.

yiqtol-לא 3B) The initial x-yiqtol (future indicative, direct speech) has as negation)

yiqtol-אל :3C) The initial (x-) yiqtol (future volitive) has as a special negation)

.yiqtol-אל-3D) The x-yiqtol (future volitive) on the SLC has as negation (waw)-x)

(4) The weqatal both in narrative passages (SLC), and in direct speech, and future .yiqtol+ולא indicative (FLC continuative form after initial x-yiqtol) has as negation

(5) The weyiqtol (direct speech) continuative in future volitive after initial yiqtol has as .yiqtol-ואל negation

2.1.2. Main features of poetry Niccacci confesses that he did not give any precise function to the verbal forms in poetry in the early years of conceiving his Biblical Hebrew syntax. Drawing on Watson’s Classical Hebrew Poetry (198 ), Niccacci in his ‘Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry’66 (1997) presents two main characteristics of poetry in contrast with prose: ‘segmented versus linear communication’ and ‘parallelism of similar bits of information

65 The initial forms are those which start the direct speech, immediately after a narrative form of introducing the direct speech, for example wayyomer. The sequence between a narrative passage which introduces a direct speech (past) may be wayyomer (he said): (x) qatal ↔ wayyiqtol (both last forms on the main level of communication). 66 Alviero Niccacci, 'Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry', Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22, No. 74 (1997), pp. 77-94.

23 versus sequence of different bits of information’. Nevertheless, he does not comment further on the verbal system.67

In the following years, he focused on different poetic passages, writing articles for Liber Annuus: ‘Syntactic Analysis of Jonah’ (1996), pp. 9-32; ‘Proverbi 23, 12-25’ (1997), 33-35; ‘Proverbi 23, 26-2 , 22’ (1998), pp. 9-10 ; ‘Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi’ (2001), pp. 55-107.

Only in ‘ he Biblical Hebrew System in Poetry’ does he comes to the conclusion that: (1) ‘verbal forms play different functions in BH poetry’ and (2) ‘verbal forms in poetry are basically the same as in prose, more precisely in direct speech’.68 Before embarking on the presentation of the poetry, Niccacci stresses two points:

a. ( eferring to the ‘Alternating qatal/yiqtol), the diachronic approach to Hebrew – like parallel comparison with Ugaritic69 – must be verified ‘within the framework of the verbal system’. He refuses at this point the idea of coordinated waw.70

b. (Referring to initial yiqtol on the future volitive tense), ‘sentence initial yiqtol is volitive, or jussive, even though its vocalization is not distinctively jussive or is not jussive at all’. he main reason for this is the fact that morphology (or vocalisation) is not sufficient to qualify yiqtol as jussive. Moreover, a first position in the sentence is enough to attest a yiqtol jussive.

Regarding poetic texts, Niccacci presents five rules for syntax:

1. qatal (past) and (future) yiqtol are each connected to their own temporal axis.

67 Niccacci, 'Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry', 1997, pp. 77-78. 68 Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, pp. 247-268. 69 Niccacci explains that the analysis should be mostly a synchronic undertaking because applying a phenomenon present in Ugaritic to BH (cf. Umberto Cassuto, The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1971), pp. 46- 8) ‘without appropriate control within the framework of the verbal system of that language’ cannot be an automatic process. Contrarily, the analysis should be primarly based on the synchronic approach and secondarily rely on diachronic arguments, cf. Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting pp. 250-251. 70 Due to the fact that weqatal is not the coordinated form for qatal, yiqtol for weyiqtol or wayyiqtol, but each of them has a specific role on a temporal axis which usually differs from one another (qatal-past/ weqatal-future; yiqtol-future/ wayyiqtol-past), the coordinated waw is not a feasible rule in BH, cf. Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, p. 251.

2. If these two forms are relating an event in the past, they indicate a shift from the main level of communication and the punctual aspect of the qatal to the SLC and the ‘repeated/habitual/explicatory/descriptive’ value of yiqtol.

3. The function of the ‘double-duty modifier’ can transform an apparent initial yiqtol (future volitive) to a non-initial yiqtol, which in turn becomes an x-yiqtol, future indicative. A double-duty modifier refers to ‘a grammatical element that serves two or more lines although it does not appear in every case but only in the first line or, more difficult to recognize, only in the subsequent parallel lines of a poetic unit’.71

4. Initial yiqtol has volitive functions.

5. Volitive yiqtol can fulfill the function of a protasis.

2.1.3. Conclusion he principal advantage of Niccacci’s theory for Hebrew syntax (especially for the poetic passages) is that the exegete is provided with a good theoretical base for translating and interpreting poetic verbal forms, rather than having to rely on his or her own opinion. It also provides him the possibility of clearly following the changes in tense (past, present, future) and in verbal aspect (durative action, repetitive or punctual). In the case of Hebrew poetry, his syntax method integrates the findings of poetic analysis, which can provide a viable explanation for particular cases.

71 Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, pp. 258-259. Niccacci’s presentation relates with Watson’s presentation of ellispsis and double duty modifiers as poetic devices (Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), pp. 303-306).

2.2. Text-critical Analysis of MT Micah 6

Textual criticism is the first task of any research on the text of the Old Testament. It seeks to answer the question: ‘which text is the best witness to the primitive text?’72 Scholars of the critical textual method recognize nowadays that the Masoretic text and the Septuagint are two distinct recensions. They must be studied by themselves, and that one is not to be favoured to the detriment of the other. This is the approach adopted by D. Barthélemy and E. Tov.73 Consequently, my presentation will discern separately the changes occurring in the transmission of the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, using textual informations from the Targum, LXX, Qumran (Mur 88), and Vulgate. My textual observations will discuss verse by verse first the BHS critical apparatus, and the recent edition of A. Gelston.74 Commentators’ proposals will also be engaged in order to assess the impact of different textual readings.

Verse 1

with λόγον κυρίου. κύριος εἶπεν or ἀκούσατε אֵת אֲשֶר־יְהוָה אֹמֵר The Septuagint translates δὴ λόγον κυρίου. ἅ ὁ κύριος εἶπεν (some LXX manuscripts). hese translations are an אֵת expansion of the MT, which provides the unusual construction of the preposition which is supported by Mur 88, Vulgate, and 75,אֵת אֲשֶר־יְהוָה אֹמֵר:with a relative sentence Targum.

Taylor observes that the Jerome, the Targum, the ,אמר Regarding the vocalization of ,אֹמֵר participle masculine singular) follow the vocalisation with אמר) Vulgate and the MT Also the .(ָאמַר) while the Septuagint (εἶπεν), and Peshitta prefer the perfect tense an obvious omission, as the LXX and Targum variants ,נָא Vulgate does not translate

72 P. Guillemette and M. Brisebois, Introduzione ai metodi storico-critici (Roma: Borla, 1990), p. 134. 73 Marguerite Harl, 'Les divergences entre la Septante et le texte massorétique', in La Bible grecque des Septante, ed. G. Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, Initiation au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988), p. 203. Harl asserts that the main reason for the divergence of the Masoretic text and the Septuagint is that fact that the latter translates a text older than the text vocalized by the Masoretes. Consequently, there are no ‘faults’ in the Septuagint, but ‘divergences’, since the Hebrew text itself was fluid at the time the LXX was made (cf. pp. 201-202). 74 A. Gelston, Introduction and Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010). 75 Cf. Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978), p. 362, n.1; Gelston, 2010, p. 77.

is supported by the Mur 88 and the LXX, while the אֵת contain this particle.76 The word Vulgate, Peshitta and Targum translate it with ‘against’.77

Verse 2

employed both in relation with water courses and ,אֵיתָן comes from הָאֵתָנִׁים The term with the idea of being wise.78 The sense of the word relates to something that is low or deep. LXX translates φάραγγες (ravine, valley, and chasm). Barthélemy shows that the ([with χειμάρρους ἄβατος (Am. 5:2 : never-failing stream [NIB נַחַל אֵיתָן LXX interprets or prefers to transliterate it rather than to translate it (Jer. 30:13; 50:44; Ps. 73:15 and I is corrected by many of the commentators to hifil perfect third הָאֵתָנִׁים Kings 8:2).79 hifil imperative plural to give ear).80 This reading modifies אזנ) וְ הַ אֲזִׁינּו masculine plural is not to be taken into account.81 The Targum interprets the וְהַאֲזִׁינּו the Masoretic text so roots of the foundation of the earth’.82‘ עקריא יסודי ארעא text translating

Verse 3

Verse three has no notable textual critical problems. The Targum expands the text, what good have I said to do‘) מא טבא אמרית למעבד לך ולא עבדית with מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי interpreting to you and I have not done?’).

a hifil perfect 1 person singular, the LXX ,לאה from הֶלְאֵתִׁיָך Regarding the second verb renders it with two terms (ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε ἢ τί παρηνώχλησά σοι) instead of one, in nifal means to tire לאה connected with ἤ, a coordinative conjunction. The verb oneself, while in hifil it signifies to make weary. Taylor suggests that at first the authors of the LXX translated first τί ἐλύπησά σε and then corrected by a more exact rendering

76 John Taylor, The Massoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the Book of Micah (London: Williams as perfect 3 masculine cf. Alexander Sperber, The אמר and Norgate, 1891), p. 131. Sperber also vocalises Bible in Aramaic. The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962), p. 447. 77 Gelston, 2010, p. 105*: ‘ he interpretation of S . although natural is less suitable to the context than that of , which is more consistent with the role of mountains as witnesses in v. 2.’ 78 BDB, p. 450. 79 Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament (OBO 50/3; Fribourg, ttingen: Editions Universitaires, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), p. 756. 80 These commentators follow the reading proposed by Wellhausen, all listed by Barthélemy, 1992, p. 755: Oort, Smith, Nowack, Marti, Halevy, Sievres, von Orelli, Powis Smith, Haupt, Duhm, Riessler, .in BDB, p. 24 אזנ .Sellin, Weiser, Robinson, Cent, Deissler, Vuilleumier, and Wolff; cf 81 Cf. Allen, 1978, p. 365. 82 Gelston, 2010, p. 77; cf. Sperber, 1962, p. 448.

in nifal and in hifil) is not very clear.83 The) לאה of παρενοχλέω since the sense of the what hard‘) מא מרועא קשיא אסגיתי עלךTargum version also expands the text with visitation have I increased against you?’), confirming the LXX’s difficulties.

These two additions are to be discarded because the Masoretic text is a lectio brevior and is confirmed by the Vulgate, Ethiopic and Mur 88 recensions.

עֲנֵה ) Gelston spots a difference between the daghes lene present in MT Leningrad Codex .on the other ,(עֲנֵה בִׁי) on one side, and its omission in MT Aleppo and Cairo Codices ,(בִׁי is ה The presence of daghes lene in this case is an error because ‘the word-final .ב generally quiescent’84 and thus there is no need for the spirantisation of the consonant Despite the fact that he signals the error, he also includes it in his critical text because this particular variant is lectio difficilior.85

Verse 4

In text-critical terms, there is no difference between the Masoretic text and its translations in verse four. Vulgate translates with an ironical question hinted in the Masoretic text quia eduxi te de terra Aegypti, close to the interpretation offered by with the first yod in plene scriptum form, a הֶעֱ לִׁתִׁיָך Niccacci.86 The Mur 88 text contains minor textual difference already signalled by Collin.87

Verse 5

This verse has several textual problems. The following textual critical questions are present in the BHS critical apparatus:

עַ מֹו with suffix 1 masculine singular - my people) probably is to be read עם) עַמִׁי .1 with suffix 3 masculine singular - his people) in connection with verse 4b. The עם) reading is an emendation as none of the variants support it.

83 Taylor, 1891, p. 133. 84 Paul Jo on and . Muraoka, A grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), pp. 83-84. 85 Gelston, 2010, p. 77. 86 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 134; Taylor, 1891, pp. 133-134. 87 Matthieu Collin, 'Recherche sur l'histoire textuelle du prophète Michée', Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971), p. 284.

is an addition, but none of the versions מֶלְֶך מֹוָאב The apparatus proposes that .2 considers this option.

might be a result of a scribal corruption of the בֶן־בְעֹור The apparatus signals that .3 text. Based on the evident verb ellipsis in 5c (‘from Shittim to Gigal’), it proposes as ,בְ in your passage [from Shittim to Gigal] (preposition (בְ )עָבְרְ ָך viable variants either you passed וַתַעֲבֹר and pronominal suffix 2 person singular), or עבר infinitive construct imperfect, 2 masculine singular+waw). These readings assume a mistaken reading עבר) The Masoretic reading is lectio difficilior and has the support of the .בְעֹור with עבר of other variants, including the Mur 88 reading.

noun צְ דָקָה) צִׁדְקֹותָי The last reading noted by the BHS Masoretic apparatus is .4 noun feminine plural צְדָקָה) צִׁדְקֹות feminine plural, my righteous deeds, God) instead of is צִׁדְקֹותָי righteous deeds of God). Apart from the fact that ,יְהוָה construct dependent on never found in the Hebrew Bible, neither variant supports this proposal. The Septuagint with ἡ δικαιοσύνη (nominative, singular), a rendering explained by צִׁדְקֹות translates aylor: ‘they choose to mention the quality instead of naming the actions in which that quality is manifested’.88 The reading depends on the construction with the conjunction one can see that the ,ידע Taking into consideration only its occurrences with .לְמַעַן Septuagint uses two conjunctions to translate it: either ἵνα, with subjunctive aorist active (Ex. 8:16; 18; 9:29; Ez. 38:16; Is. 43:10; 45:3, 6), or ὅπως, with subjunctive aorist active (Ex. 11:7; Lv. 23:43; 1 Kings 8:43, 60; 2 Chr. 6:33; Ps. 78:6), Micah 6:5 being the only occurrence with the passive voice. Consequently, in this last case, the Septuagint authors have interpreted the text, rather than translated it. Symmachus also with ἐλεημοσύνας (accusative plural from ἐλεημοσύνη) which supposes צִׁדְקֹות interprets a verbal form in the active voice, a reading also not authentic.

מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים Moreover, most of the commentators suppose that there is an ellipsis before :I found two coherent reconstructions .עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל

.(’what I have done from Shittim to ilgal‘) ּומֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי מִׁן הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל :a. Taylor in 3a which starts the series of עשה This reconstruction uses the first verb

88 Taylor, 1891, p. 136.

.can be found in Num. 22:28; Judg. 8:2; 1Sam מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי interrogatives.89 The expression 17:29; 20:1; 26:18; 29:8; 1 Kgs. 19:20; 2Chr. 32:13; and Jer. 8:6.

,This setting is similar with Ex. 32:1, 23 . ּומֶה־הָיָהמִׁן הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל :b. Barthélemy 1Sam. 4:6; 2Sam. 1:4; Ecc. 7:10, but there is no similar occurrence in the prophetic books.90

The only version that agrees literally with MT is Mur 88, followed closely by Vulgate. subordinate) לְמַעַן דַעַת Taylor shows that the Vulgate has one misreading of the verb infinitive construct). Verse 5 supposes a second person ידע conjunction with singular to whom the exhortation is addressed, so the correct rendering would be ut cognosceres (subjunctive, imperfect, 2 singular - so that you may know the righteous deeds of God), not ut cognosceret (subjunctive, imperfect, 3 singular – so that he may know).91

Verse 6

There are no significant textual problems in verse six, apart from the fact that in the Mur Though the last two letters of the word are .בעלות is read with בְעֹולֹות text 88 where waw (mater (בעל) reconstructed in Mur 88, the text preserves the first 3 letters lectionis) is not present in the manuscript. The Septuagint proposes an expansion of the לֵאֹלהֵי θεοῦ μου ὑψίστου, my highest God), instead of) אֱֹלהַי MT vocalizing with (masculine singular construct, God).92

Verse 7

on יְהוָה In verse seven the BHS critical apparatus suggests the deletion of the noun account of the metre (4+3+3+3).93 The omission would make a fine lectio brevior. Looking at the poem in 6, 1-8, one can see that its main focus is not the people, but יְהוָה ,God. While the people are mentioned three times (v. 2c, 3a, and 5a) and Israel once is mentioned seven times in eight verses (1a, 2ac, 5d, 6a, 7a, 8b). His name is missing only in verses 3-4 where God himself addresses rhetorical questions to his people;

89 Taylor, 1891, pp. 134-135. 90 Barthélemy, 1992, p. 757. 91 Taylor, 1891, p. 135. 92 Gelston, 2010, p. 78. 93 Allen, 1978, p. 362.

30 therefore he is present directly through his words. Consequently, the repetition of the name is part of the author’s intention to show that the message is from od himself, and cannot be deleted on metrical grounds.

Verse 8

הִׁגִׁיד In verse eight the Masoretic critical apparatus signals the fact that LXX translates hifil, perfect 3 masculine singular) with ἀνηγγέλη (indicative aorist passive 3 ,נגד) singular of ἀναγγέλλω to announce, to report), Theodotion with ἐρρέθη (indicative הֻגַד aorist passive 3 singular from λέγω to say): both imply a Masoretic Vorlage with (hofal, perfect, 3 masculine singular, be reported). Also the Targum interprets this These variants are an interpretation .(אתחוה לך אנשא) Hebrew form as a passive voice which modifies the text. Sadly, Mur 88 manuscript is lacking this verse entirely.

Verse 9

Regarding verses 9-16, the BHS critical apparatus supposes that the verses should be regrouped. hose which address the prophecy to the ‘city’ (3 fem.) should be read together (meaning verses 6:9, 12, 1 aβb, 16). erses 6:10, 11, 13, 1 aα, 15 which present the prophecy against an addressee in 2 masculine are to be refered to a 2 masculine person and also to be studied together.94 This textual reconstruction has no support in the manuscripts. Moreover, verses 10 and 11 display no visible connection with verse 13, besides the logical one supposed by Smith (1912) and Vuilleumier. It is closer to the 3 feminine in v.9, and there is no need to modify the text connecting verses 10-11 with 13.95

Each of the three sentences in verse 9 presents one or more textual problems:

94 This variant is preferred by Smith in J. M. Powis Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), p. 129, who translates vs. 12 immediately after v. 9, clearly showing the syntactical connection between the two verses. ené uilleumier adopts a similar position: ené uilleumier, Michée ( en ve: Labor et Fides, 1990), p. 75, who accepts Smith’s proposed critical text almost without emendation. yiqtol, 3 masculine singular active) is attested in the Greek versions of Aquila and) יִׁקְרָ א 95The verbal form Symmachus, in the Vulgate. The Septuagint uses ἐπικληθήσεται (indicative present passive, 3 singular, The passive voice of the LXX .יִׁקָרֵ א will be called) which supposes a nifal vocalization of the text with interprets the passage or is a more ancient reading.

is interpreted differently by the translations קֹול יְהוָהלָעִׁיר יִׁקְרָ א The phrase .1 (passive in the LXX; the Targum uses the plural to agree with the syntactical subject).96

is considered by the BHS critical וְתּושִׁיָה יִׁרְ אֶה שְמֶָך The expression .2 apparatus an addition. The problem stems from the fact that the sense of may be derived from two יראה is not very clear and the verbal form תּושִׁיָה to fear). The meaning of the sentence is ירא to see and ראה) different roots .תּושִׁיָה dependent on

in LXX) יֹושִׁיעַ with (1) hifil imperfect תּושִׁיָה a. The Septuagint’s rendering of proposed by the BHS critical apparatus are הֹושִׁיעַ σώσει) and (2) the hifil perfect both interpretations of the text. They require a change not only in pointing, but also in the consonantal text. Analyzing the occurrences of this form in MT, Grim assigns it several meanings: success in Job 5:12; prop, support in Job 30:21; reliability in Job 11:6; help in Prov. 2:7 and Is. 28:23; strength (due to seems to be‘ תּושִׁיָה in Prov. 8:14 and 18:1. He argues that (גְבּורָ ה parallelism with connected etymologically with the Assyrian stem asû (a synonym of takâlu), in the Ninevite pronunciation, ašû 'to support, to help', and its derivatives issu and usâtu, 'help', asû, 'helper, physician', asîtu, 'pillar, support', which, in the Ninevite pronunciation ašîtu, has passed into Hebrew’.97 Consequently, he considers Mic. 6:9ab ‘void of proper sense’.98 On the other hand, Gertz are related to Wisdom תּושִׁיָה concludes that the occurrences in the MT of literature.99 Even though the term is difficult to interpret in its present form and here preserves its sense as ‘wisdom’ as proposed by BDB.100 תּושִׁיָה ,position

96 Gelston, 2010, p. 106*. in the Old Testament', Journal of the תּושִׁיָה 97Karl J. Grimm, 'The Meaning and Etymology of the Word American Oriental Society 22 (1901), p. 43. .in the Old Testament', 1901, p. 42 תּושִׁיָה Grimm, 'The Meaning and Etymology of the Word 98 99 G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds., Grande lessico dell’Antico Testamento, vol. IX (Brescia: Paideia, 2009), p. 1079. 100 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown‒Driver‒Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), pp. 444/1064. Cf. Carl F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark/Hendrickson, 1871/2006), p. 336; Allen, 1978, p. 375 ‘good sense’; Ben Zvi, 2000, , p. 155; Jacobs, 2001, p. 245; Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 87; Stuart Weeks, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1-9 (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 197.

to fear is embraced by those who interpret it using the recensions ירא b. The variant to see) recognizes) ראה LXX, Vulgate, Syriac, etc).101 Nevertheless, the variant) and it is supported by those who are more תּושִׁיָה the wisdom background of conservative regarding the Massoretic text in respecting its integrity.102

MT, Vulgate, Targum). The latter is) שְמֶָך LXX) instead of) שְמֹו c. The LXX reads lectio difficilior, so the variant reading is not acceptable.

presents ambiguous readings stemming שִׁמְעּומַטֶה ּומִׁי יְעָדָּה The MT in .3 does not agree in gender with the מַטֶה from the fact that the masculine noun influences greatly the ּומִׁי יְעָדָּה The interpretation of .יְעָדָּה feminine suffix in textual options of most of the commentators regarding not only this phrase :There are here two currents of interpretation .מַטֶה itself, but also the sense of

with ‘and who ּומִׁי יְעָדָּה a. The most ancient starts with the LXX which translates will adorn the city?’, putting together the last two words of verse 9 and the first This recension supposes .(עִׁיר to עֹוד word of verse 10 (which is changed from major changes not only in the vocalization but also in the Masoretic text itself. A second proposal (which builds on the previous one) also changes the assembly of the city’, thus‘ מֹועֵד הָ עִׁיר vocalization and the text supposing transforming the whole sense of the phrase into ‘Listen tribe and assembly of the .’with ‘tribe מַטֶה city’.103 Both interpretations translate

b. The second current preserves the MT and makes no change. Though it is supported by a small number of scholars,104 this is the right textual choice as it represents a lectio difficilior. Taylor has rightly observed that the ancient is in fact the מַטֶה as vocative, while מַטֶה versions have erroneously considered is used‘ מַטֶה poses no problem as the masculine יְעָדָּה object. The suffix feminine

101 Allen, 1978, p. 375; Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 155; Jacobs, 2001, p. 245. 102 Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 226; Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 87; Waltke, 2007, p. 737. 103 Cf. Smith, 1912, p. 129; Mays, 1976, p. 143; Wolff, 1990, p. 185; Vuilleumier, 1990, p. 75; Jacobs, 2001, p. 245; Waltke, 2007, pp. 394-396. 104 Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 336; Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 155; Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 87; Gelston, 2010, p. 106*: ‘All the versions interpret the rather than as its object, and G V S interpret it ,שִׁמְעּו as vocative referring to the subject of (מַטֶה .noun (i.e in the sense ‘tribe’ rather than ‘rod’. […] the most probable interpretation of the clause: ‘Listen to the rod (which strikes) and (learn) who is the one who has appointed it’’.

in the figurative sense of punishment or calamity’, which are generic/indefinite qualifications; hence, the feminine reference is ‘common’.105

Verse 10

is translated by the LXX and by הַאִׁש This verse has several textual problems. The term The changes proposed by the .הַאֵש (the ulgate with πῦρ ‘fire’ which supposes (1 both ,הַאֶשָא (or (3 הַאֶשֶה (critical apparatus posit a different vocalization with (2 to forget’,106 while‘ נָשָה is derived from הַאֶשֶה presuming different roots. The first term to lift, carry, take’ or forgive. Despite the fact‘ נָשָא comes from הַאֶשָא the second term could be a lectio difficilior, none of the three is a credible variant as they הַאֵש that occurs twice in הַאִׁש .(involve changing either the vocalization (1), or the MT (2) and (3 the BHS: once plene scriptum (Neh. 6:11) and once written defectively (Mic. 6:10).

as it may be a lectio varia or a בֵית רָ שָע The critical apparatus proposes the deletion of Though this variant would be a lectio brevior, its removal has no . אֹצְרֹות רֶ שַע gloss for support in the other recensions. While the LXX expands the text (with θησαυρίζων .omitted as dittography107), the Targum and the Vulgate follow closely the MT ,(אֹוצָר)

Verse 11

זכה) הַאֶזְכֶה In this verse the critical apparatus signals only the different interpretation of ,be pure זָכַך verb qal imperfect 1 singular be pure) with ‘iustificabo’ ( ulgate) from to be clean/pure’.108 The confusion in Vulgate‘ זָכַך is a bi-form of זָכָה clean. ‘ he root is are so (זָכָה Vulgate ;זָכַך :is to be understood given the fact that these two terms (MT closely related in meaning and inflexion.

Verse 12

The ambiguity of the text leaves room for debate regarding the position that this verse should occupy in the chapter. he prophet is directing his speech to the ‘wealthy people’ and the ‘inhabitants’ with no specific delimitation as to which place they and the feminine singular אֲשֶר :belong. Syntactically speaking there are two difficulties

105Taylor, 1891, p. 143. 106 Smith, 1912, pp. 129-130. 107 Smith, 1912, p. 130. 108 Waltke, 2007, p. 399.

34 suffixes in v. 12 have no viable antecedent in v. 11. Most of the commentators believe they are connected with the ‘city’ to which the voice of the prophet is calling in verse 9109 and some actually relocate the entire v. 12 after v. 9.110

Nevertheless, the relocation of v. 12 is not attested in any of the manuscripts, nor in the other ancient recensions. Also the text as it is represents a lectio difficilior. The present as a אֲשֶר text may be explained in two ways. he first is Wolff’s position, who considers causal and not a relative conjunction, deriving his supposition from the Syriac translation. He also points out the logical connection (guilt and punishment) between verses 12 and 13 which is disrupted by the relocation.111 The second belongs to Keil and as a relative pronoun and the אֲשֶר seems more elegant. He respects the normal regime of presence of the two feminine singular suffixes ‘She, whose rich men are full of …’.112 Continuing on this line of thought, verses 11-12 should be understood in a closer connection: ‘Will I be pure in the scale of wickedness and … [Will I be pure] in her whose rich men are full of violence and [whose] inhabitants …’. The text has an ellipsis is to be interpreted as equivalent to a genitive singular. The אֲשֶר and the הַאֶזְכֶה of is specified by the subsequent feminine suffixes, which אֲשֶר determination in gender of the only logical antecedent for all. Given the limited syntactical ,עִׁיר connect it with means of Biblical Hebrew to convey the required genitive, this construction is the only way to express it.

Verse 13

The Targum recension follows the MT.113 The only visible problem is that regarding the hiphil perfect 1 singular to make sick, ill). The critical apparatus חלה) הֶחֱלֵיתִׁי MT form hiphil perfect 1 singular to begin) presented by חלל) חַחִׁ לֹותִׁי signals the different variant

109 Allen, 1978, p. 375, n. 56; Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 156; Waltke, 2007, p. 400. 110 Smith, 1912, p. 132: ‘ he transfer of v. 12 to this position furnishes the feminine suffixes of v. 12 the required antecedent, which is lacking when it follows verse 11; and also yields the two lines necessary to complete Str. I, leaving v. 10 to go with v. 11 into Str. II where they belong together.’ Cf. Vuilleumier, 1990, p. 76, n. 1: ‘Nous avons déplacé ce verset ici parce qu’il n’est certainement pas au bon endroit dans .il fait suite au verset 9.’; Mays, 1976, p. 144 ,אֲשֶר TM. Par conjonction 111 Wolff, 1990, pp. 186-187. His position is confirmed by Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo can have the אֲשֶר traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 138. He concedes that ‘the relative pronoun function of a conjunction’. He also gives acceptable equivalents in Italian ‘quanto al fatto che, dato che, poiché’. 112 Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 338. 113 Gelston, 2010, p. 79.

LXX, Vulgate, Aquila, Theodotion and the Syriac recensions. This variant is a consequence of confusion of verbal root which resulted in different vocalizations of the text.

MT, LXX, Symmachus, Vulgate and) חַטֹאתֶָך The majority of recensions accept Peshitta), while Aquila and heodotion expand the text with πάσαις ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις σου. Obviously the first variant is the closest because it represents a lectio brevior and has wider support.

Verse 14

אַתָה תֹאכַלוְֹלא תִׁשְבָע There are four textual puzzles. (1) One regards the transposition of before verse 15. This has little support in the textual witnesses.114 (2) The second he BDB supposes that it means ‘emptiness (of .יֶשְחֲָך regards the sense of the hapax hunger)’, a sense derived from the context.115 The versions translate it differently: LXX – vb. be, grow dark), Syriac חָשְַך ,וְיֶשְחֲָך) and Theodotion) propose καὶ σκοτάσει) imperfect 3 masculine שָחַח dysentry, Targum – sickness, Vulgate – humiliation (from singular from bow, be bowed down, cf. Psalm 10:10).116 Modern interpreters117 also support different opinions such as hunger,118 semen,119 child,120 bowel blockage,121 physical pain,122 and some consider it a gloss (deleting it altogether).123 Given the variety of the solutions proposed, I side with Keil, BDB and Niccacci,124 interpreting the text as a lectio difficilior and determining its meaning from the context.

all with no support , וְיֶשְחֲָך בְקִׁרְ בֶָך וְתַסֵג There are also three different proposals for (3) from the recensions:

114 Smith supports this theory on the grounds of the ‘connection […] established between v. 1 a and v. 15’ and that of strophic structure, cf. Smith, 1912, p. 134. 115 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1962, p. 445. 116 Taylor, 1891, pp. 148-149. 117 A detailed discussion is given in Renaud, 1977, p. 331-334 and McKane, 1998, pp. 196-198. 118 Vuilleumier, 1990, p. 77; Jacobs, 2001, p. 245; 119 Mays, 1976, p. 143. 120 Allen, 1978, p. 376. 121 McKane, 1998, p. 201; Ben Zvi, 2000, pp. 155-156; Waltke, 2007, p. 402: dysentery. 122 Wolff, 1990, p. 185. ;in this phrase is wholly unknown [וְיֶשְחֲָך] Smith, 1912, pp. 133-13 : ‘ he meaning of the main word 123 no help is to be derived from the Vrss. […] he cognate languages know no such word. Hence no assurance is possible as to its meaning’; Renaud, 1977, p. 333. 124 Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 338; Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 88:‘il tuo vuoto’.

,נשַג/נסג) ’… and what in your inside/midst you will conceive‘ - וַאֲשֶרבְקִׁרְ בֶָך תַסִׁג .a hifil, imperfect 2 masculine singular, to reach, overtake, here to conceive) ,סגר) ’[and has power in your midst to close [the womb‘ וְיֶש־כֹחַ בְקִׁרְ בֶָך תִׁסָגֵר .b niphal imperfect 3 feminine singular to shut up, close) with reference to Gen. is employed to relate od action of closing someone’s עצר where the root 20:18 womb, to render infertile. and there is power in her to close’ (referring to the city from‘ וְיֶש־כֹחַ בְקִׁרְ בָּה תִׁסָגֵר .c 9a)

share the sense of סגר and עצר The following comment concerns points b) and c). Both suggests עצר closing, shutting up but with different nuances. On the one hand, the root ‘stopping from, refraining from and restraining from, appease’ (cf. en. 16:2 (Sara from being pregnant); Num. 17:13; 25:8; 2 Sam. 24:25 (the plague); Dt. 11:17 (the rain); I Sam. 21:6 (sexual intercourse)). he sense ‘to render infertile/close the womb’ is used only with regard to the life of Sara, and in Isaiah 66:9.

as most of its occurrences עצר is more descriptive than סגר On the other hand, the verb in MT refer to a specific instrument of closing (with flesh or fat (Gen. 2:21; Jg.3:22), by a door (Gen. 19:6; Jdg. 3:23; 2 Kgs. 4:4; 2 Chr. 28:24; Neh. 6:10; to isolate in Lv. 13:4) with the same sense of to סגר or a gate (Jos. 2:5), by the desert (Ex. 14:3)). The use of ‘close the womb’ is to be found only Sam. 1:5-6 (referring to Hanna) and Job 3:10. the דַלְתֵי בִׁטְנִׁי Strikingly enough the passage of Job 3:10 contains also the expression סגר was derived from וְתַסֵג doors of my womb [where I was]. Consequently, if the term (to close [the womb]), the author would have been more descriptive at Micah 6:14, by including physical elements to specify the meaning intended. Moreover, the arguments taken from the context are themselves emendations and/or suppositions with little support.

hifil [causal] imperfect 2) תַפְלִׁיט The last difficulty consists of a textual change from (4) piel [intensive] imperfect 2 masculine) תְפַלֵט masculine singular to bring to safety) to singular bring forth cf. Job 21:10).125 This variant changes MT and tries to make more plausible the interpretations discussed earlier.

125 Variation supported by H. Torczyner, 'Bibliographische Anzeigen: Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch', Zeitschriften der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 70 (1916), p. 558; Allen, 1978, p. 376; Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 155.

In modern times, this text has been analysed and translated differently. The proposals can be narrowed down to two main lines:

1. The first starts with the Septuagint and Targum which translate literally and supposes that there will be emptiness/sickness inside and one will save, but will not be able to keep it [the crop] and what it will keep will be delivered to the sword.126

2. The second derives from Jewish medieval authors (Ibn Janah, Ibn Ezra, and Qimhi) who translate 1 c with: ‘And thou shalt conceive, but shalt not bring forth’.127 ישח from וְיֶשְחֲָך Probably having this birth image in mind, H. Torczyner derives embryo.128 Jewish medieval explanation finds linguistic support with Driver who to reach. The result of this נָשַג from תשג is interpreted by Targum as תַסֵג suggests that change is ‘thou mayst make (the embryo) to reach (the mouth of the womb)’.129 The most soundly based text is the one presented in the BHS Masoretic text. While the medieval Jewish commentators and the modern linguists make a very good case to support these emendations of the text, still they offer an exegesis.

Verse 15

Gelston ,תירוש This verse has no textual problems. Regarding the interpretation of shows that all the versions translate the consonantal Hebrew text. The Septuagint and the Vulgate translate it as a noun (wine), while the Targum and Peshitta prefer the verbal form (to tread, to press grapes).130

126 This position is supported by Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 338; Smith, 1912, p. 129; Wolff, 1990, p. 185; McKane, 1998, p. 205; Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 140. .in Job 9:31', Journal of Biblical Literature 83, No שַחַת See discussion in Marvin H. Pope, 'The Word 127 3 (1964), p. 271 n. 4 and Waltke, 2007, pp. 402-403. 128 Torczyner, 'Bibliographische Anzeigen: Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch', 1916, p. 558. 129 G. R. Driver, 'Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets II', The Journal of Theological Studies 39, No. 155 (1938), pp. 267-268: ‘The meaning then is: whatever thou doest shall have no result; thou shalt eat and remain empty, thou shalt be like a woman who brings to the birth but cannot deliver her child and, if thou art successful, I will destroy the fruit of thy labour.’ 130 Gelston, 2010, p. 107*.

Verse 16

Verse 16 is corrected in the critical apparatus of BHS as it has been connected with v. 9, referring to the fact that all the accusations should be made to a 3 feminine person (city), not a 2 masculine person as we see in the text. These corrections are:

a 3 וַתִׁשְמֹר a. LXX in some manuscripts and heodotion propose καὶ ἐφύλαξας or ;(your [feminine] inhabitants) וְיֹשְבֶ יהָ feminine form in order to agree with either a 2 plural form or suppose a 2 feminine וַתֵלְכּו בְמֹעֲצֹותָם b. Some add to ;and cf. 9a ,ותלְֶך singular ;feminine singular 2 אתָּה with אֹתְָך c. The form 2 masculine singular probably is an addition, but it is necessary if the וְחֶרְ פַת עַמִׁיתִׁשָאּו d. The sentence in agreement with 9a) is) תִׁשָא with the 2 feminine singular form תִׁשָאּו change of accepted; .feminine singular 2 תִׁשָ א masculine plural) is replaced by 2) תִׁשָאּו e. The form All these corrections are trying to harmonize the text of v. 16 either with itself (point a), or with v. 9 (points b, c, and d). The reasons behind the changes are attempts to obtain a more plausible and easily readable text. The text as it is represents a lectio difficilior.

Other changes found in the versions:

a. Septuagint: LXX translates with λαῶν עַמִׁי - .has καὶ ἐφύλαξας τὰ δικαιώματα Ζαμβρι וְיִׁשְתַמֵר חֻקֹות עָמְרִׁ י LXX for - ἐφύλαξας is a 2 singular active form, while the MT has the 3 singular hitpael form. Taylor supposes that the M ‘reading must have been well supported by tradition’ if the Massoret still preserves it, despite the difficulty of the reading.131 b. Targum: instead of 3 singular in order to agree with (דנטרתון) Tg has 2 plural active - ועבדתון the next בֵית־ַאחְָאב to parallel the (עמרי) before (בֵית) Tg uses - all the‘ וְכֹל מַעֲשֵה you have done the works’ instead of‘ (עובדי ועבדתון) Tg uses - works’

131 Taylor, 1891, p. 152.

– whistling לִׁשְרֵ קָה verb hithpeel – to be confounded) for שמם) לאשתממו Tg - inaccurate feminine singular construct disgrace) has a variant in LXX and in) חֶרְ פַ ת The word Targum where the term is translated with a plural, (ὀνείδη plural accusative neuter shame). While the reading in LXX tries חסוד plural from חסודי ;ὄνειδος, ους, τό disgrace to make it agree with its determinant λαῶν, there is no visible reason for the change in case of the Targum.

2.3.1. Syntactical Commentary on MT Micah 6

My syntactical analysis and translation draw on Niccacci’s ‘The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew prose’ 1990, his three articles regarding Hebrew syntax and poetry (1987, 1997, and 2006) and the one regarding the Book of Micah (2007).132 The translation and analysis will try to determine where possible where each character intervenes and to what purpose.

1 ִׁש ְמעּו־ ָ֕נָא ֵֵ֥את133 ֲא ֶשר־יְהָָ֖וה א ֹ ֵֵ֑מר ֚קּום ִִׁ֣ריב ֶאת־ ֶה ָה ִִׁ֔רים ְו ִׁת ְש ֵַ֥מ ְענָה ַה ְג ָב ָ֖עֹות קֹו ֶלֶָֽך׃ Listen to what the Lord says: Arise, contend together with the mountains; let the hills hear your voice!

The first verse starts with an imperative (future volitive) followed by a non-verbal nominalizes any אֲשֶר ,sentence,134 also called a Simple Nominal Clause (SNC subsequent verbal form), which introduces the direct speech. The direct speech begins with two imperatives and a weyiqtol (the normal continuative form of the future volitive) which preserves the volitive force of the first two verbs.

2 ִׁש ְמ ֤עּו ָה ִׁרי ֙ם ֶאת־ ִִׁ֣ריב135 יְה ִָ֔וה ְו ָה ֵא ָת ִָׁ֖נים ִ֣מ ֹ ְס ֵדי ֵָ֑א ֶרץ ִִׁ֣כי ִׁ֤ריב 136לַ ֶֽיהוָה֙ 137 ִׁעם־ ַע ִ֔מֹו ְו ִׁעם־יִׁ ְש ָר ֵָ֖אל 138יִׁתְוַכָ ֶֽח׃ Listen, O mountains, to the case of the Lord and you perennial foundations of the earth: because there is a case before the Lord against his people, and he will argue against Israel.

The second verse starts with an imperative and proceeds with a subordinate SNC and an x-yiqtol. The imperative is the mode of the future volitive in Hebrew so the final x- yiqtol will evrecnoc the future tense in translation. The identity of the characters

132 Alviero Niccacci, 'A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence', Liber Annuus 37 (1987), pp. 7-19; Niccacci, 'Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry', 1997, ; Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting; Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, pp. 83-161. 133 BDB, p. 85 134 There is no finite verbal form in this particular clause as the infinitive and participle do not count as verbal forms. .vb. strive, contend; noun/masculine strife, dispute, controversy, case law רִׁ יב :BDB, p. 937 135 .prep. ‘denoting possession, belonging to’, predicative ל BDB, p .513 136 is with the sense of (עִׁם) if the common action be of the nature of a contest or combat‘ עִׁם ,BDB, p. 767 137 against.’ .verb hithpael imperfect 3rd masculine singular: with Israel he will argue יכח ,BDB, p. 406 138

41 becomes clear. The prophet is calling the mountains and hills as witnesses. The Lord’s case is against ‘his people’ and ‘Israel’.

3 עַמִׁי מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁילְָך ּומָה הֶלְאֵתִׁיָך עֲנֵה בִׁי׃ 4כִׁי הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך ץמֵאֶרֶ מִׁצְרַ יִׁם ּומִׁבֵית עֲבָדִׁיםפְדִׁיתִׁיָך וָאֶשְלַחלְפָנֶיָך אֶת־מֹשֶה ַאהֲרֹן ּומִׁרְ יָם׃ The temporal sequence of verses 3-4 starts with two x-qatals, the past tense. This verse The past tense returns .עֲנֵה בִׁי marks a change from the past tense to the future volitive with two x-qatal forms in v. 4 followed by one wayyiqtol, the normal form of narration would have (כִׁי הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך) in the past tense. The normal continuation of the first x-qatal (ּומִׁבֵית עֲבָדִׁים פְדִׁיתִׁיָך) been with wayyiqtol in order to preserve the second clause coordinated with it. Instead the poet changes the normal sequence by using the x-qatal to obtain a chiastic verse pattern.139 he form of the chiasm in ab is αβ//β’α’. his .(וָאֶשְלַ ח לְפָנֶיָך) second x-qatal is connected with the last wayyiqtol

The great majority of commentators do not present a coherent explanation of the connection between verses 3 and 4. There are two options in translating this verse: as an affirmative or as an interrogative sentence. The first is supported by most of the commentators,140 while the second one is supported by Barthélemy141 and Niccacci.142 Obviously verses 3-4 share a logical connection, as v. 3 contains two questions and v. 4 clearly implies a subordinate relation between כִׁי ,is the only answer present. Moreover the two, so the affirmative dominant quality of verse 4 is not probable.

The setting of verses 3-4 fits a protasis-apodosis pattern, as proposed by Van Selms. He argues for the existence in biblical Hebrew of the ‘motivated interrogative sentence’. sometimes followed ,הֲ hese are ‘sentences commencing with the interrogative particle the apodosis being introduced by the ,אִׁם by a second question introduced by

139 Watson, 1984, pp. 201-202. 140 Mays, 1976, p 128; Allen, 1978, 362; Wolff, 1990, p. 164; Vuilleumier, 1990, p. 70; McKane, 1998, p. 185; Waltke, 2007, p. 343. 141 Barthélemy, 1992, p. 757. 142 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 134.

According to van Selms, a similar construction contains (1) the 143.’כִׁי conjunction and ,כִׁי the conjunction ,מָה or interrogative pronoun הֲ ) aforementioned particles a message that conveys irony, indignation or anger, (3) reductio ad (2) ,(אִׁם sometimes absurdum, and (4) an apodosis with the imperfect. His conclusions are limited of course to the passages examined.

Verses 3b- are a ‘motivated interrogative sentence’ because they share the first three characteristics described by van Selms. Niccacci already pointed out the ironical characteristic of the passage stating: ‘I translated verse 4 with an ironical question […] The only 144.’מָה from verse 4 in connection with the interrogative pronoun כִׁי analyzing difference is that the apodosis in this passage does not show a verbal form in the .(הֶעֱלִׁתיָך) imperfect tense but in the perfect tense

In stating God’s case, the prophet employs reductio ad absurdum. Van Selms maintains that in this type of construction the question suggests that ‘both the speaker and the person listening know that what has been asked is not a reality’.145 The Exodus from Egypt is a reality proven by the very existence of Israel. The general sense of the question is ‘Should I not have brought you from the land of Egypt and from the house of slavery; should I not have ransomed you […] in order not to make you weary?’ It is absurd to think that God should have left them in the land of Egypt because the Exodus would ‘weary’ the people. he use of this ‘motivated rhetorical question’ is a more suitable technique of persuasion than a simple statement of the fact that God had saved them from annihilation when he brought them from Egypt.

and from עֲנֵה בִׁי The difficulty of the passage stems both from the insertion of the clause the Masoretic accentuation, which sever the connection between verses 3b and 4. Rendering an oral message in writing is difficult in any epoch due to the limitation of expressing the non-verbal message (tone of voice, mimicry, particular stresses on words

143 A. van Selms, 'Motivated Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew', Semitics 2 (1971-1972), p. 143. He revisited this argument in a later article: A. van Selms, 'Motivated Interrogative Sentences in the Book of Job', Semitics 6 (1978), pp. 28-35. In conclusion of this paper, van Selms argues that this questions have too much passion, irony and sarcasm that thier origins could not be assumed in an ordinary ‘situation of life’. heir language, the usual presentation of characters and of the case makes it very similar to a rîb. In time, the repetition of these texts induced the appearance of rhetorical motivated questions (cf. p. 33). 144 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 134 n.100. 145 Selms, 'Motivated Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew', 1971-1972, p. 143.

,is an incidental sentence typical of oral discourse עֲנֵה בִׁי and body language). The clause which in our times would have been inserted between commas. Therefore, the MT verse division should be overlooked, and verses 3-4 translated continuously: ‘My people, what have I done to you? Have I made you weary, answer me, because I brought you up from the land of Egypt and from the house of slavery I ransomed you and I sent before you Moses, Aaron and Miriam?’

All in all, verse 4 is a rhetorical interrogative question that rejects any other counter- argument the people might have against God, as their very existence is an act of God.

5 ַע ִּ֗ ִׁמי זְ ָכר־נָ ֙א ַמה־יָ ִּ֗ ַעץ ָב ָל ֙ק ִֶ֣מ ֶלְך מֹו ִ֔ ָאב ּו ֶמה־ ָע ָנֵ֥ה א ָֹ֖תֹו ִׁב ְל ִָ֣עם ֶבן־ ְב ֵ֑עֹור ִׁמן־ ַה ִׁש ִׁטי ֙ם ַעד־ ַה ִׁג ְל ִ֔ ָגל ְל ָ֕ ַמ ַען ַָ֖ד ַעת ִׁצ ְד ֵ֥קֹות יְהָוֶֽה׃ My people remember now what Balak, king of Moab, planned and what Balaam son of Beor answered him from Shittim to Gilgal in order to know the righteous deeds of God.

This verse contains two x-qatal interrogatives, referring to the past. Moreover, the is not מִׁן episode of Balaam and Balak occurs before Gilgal (so the preposition connecting the two places with this episode) and the three biblical names are not related to any of the facts that occurred at Shittim or Gilgal. Those involved all died before ever reaching Shittim: Moses on Mt. Nebo, Aaron on Mt. Hor (Num. 20:20), Miriam in the might have been an מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָ ל ,wilderness of Zin (Num. 20:1-2). Consequently independent sentence as presented in the textual criticism part. The best solution seems what I have done from‘) ּומֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי מִׁן הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָ ל :to be the one proposed by Taylor146 Shittim to Gilgal’). od’s call to remembrance has three objects: the plan of Balak, Beor’s answer and the facts which took place between Shittim and ilgal. he verse closes with an infinitival construction with no syntactical value, as a conclusion of all the acts of salvation performed by God.

6בַמָה֙ 147 ֲא ַק ִֵ֣דם יְה ִָ֔וה 148 ִׁא ַָ֖כף ֵלאֹל ִֵ֣הי ָמֵ֑רֹום ַה ֲא ַק ְד ִֶ֣מּנּו ְבעֹו ִ֔לֹות ַב ֲעגָ ִָׁ֖לים ְב ֵנֵ֥י ָש ָנֶֽה׃ With what shall I come before God and bow myself before the Most High God? Shall I go before him with burnt offerings, with calves of one year old?

146 Taylor, 1891, p. 134. .piel imperfect 1 singular to go before, to precede קדם :BDB, p. 869 147 .niphal imperfect 1singular to bend, to bow, to submit oneself to anyone כפף :BDB, p. 496 148

The verse is formed by the succession x-yiqtol, yiqtol, x-yiqtol, all future indicative. The rule as explained by Niccacci points out that yiqtol cannot stand in the first position in the clause in the future indicative.149 This particular problem was discussed in a recent article by J. Joosten who concludes that the non-first position of yiqtol in the phrase can be either the result of an ellipsis or certain exceptional conditions.150 He only presents two examples of the latter (I Kgs. 22:22 and Gen. 41:15), which lead him to the conclusion that ‘the handful of cases of clause-initial yiqtol occurring at the beginning of discourse are real exceptions.’151 Mic. 6:6b does not fit the first case as the context shows that the ellipsis is unlikely. Consequently, this is one of the cases that defy the rule but, as Joosten notes, this does not cast any doubt on Niccacci’s observation.152

7 ֲהיִׁ ְר ֶ֤צה יְה ָו ֙ה ְבַא ְל ִֵ֣פי ֵאי ִ֔ ִׁלים ְב ִׁ ֶֽר ְב ָ֖בֹות ַנֶֽ ֲח ֵלי־ ֵָ֑ש ֶמן ַה ֶא ֵ֤ת ן ְבכֹו ִׁר ֙י ִׁפ ְש ִ֔ ִׁעי ְפ ִֵׁ֥רי ִׁב ְט ִָׁ֖ני ַח ֵַ֥טאת נַ ְפ ִׁ ֶֽשי׃ Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul?

The MT proceeds with two x-yiqtols on the future temporal axis, FLC. The questions follow the same pattern: interrogative pronoun, verb, complement and a hyperbolic .( יפְרִׁ בִׁטְנִׁי חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי/בְרִׁ בְבֹות נַחֲלֵי־שָמֶן) sequence

8 ִׁה ִֵׁ֥גיד ְל ָָ֛ך ָא ָָ֖דם ַמה־ ֵ֑טֹוב ּו ָמֶֽה־יְהָ֞ ָוה דֹוִֵ֣רש ִׁמ ְמ ִָּ֗ך ִִׁ֣כי ִׁאם־ ֲע ֤שֹות ִׁמ ְש ָפ ֙ט ְו ִַ֣א ֲה ַבת ִ֔ ֶח ֶסד 153 ְו ַה ְצ ֵנֵ֥ ַע ֶָ֖ל ֶכת ִׁעם־ ֱאֹל ֶהֶֽיָך׃ פ He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord seeks from you, only to do justice, to love goodness and to walk humbly with your God.

The author shifts to the past tense using a qatal form on the FLC followed by two indirect questions on the SLC. The initial form in direct speech may be an x-qatal or a

149 Niccacci, 'A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence', 1987, pp. 7-19. Nevertheless, yiqtol initial is normal in future volitive. 150 Jan Joosten, 'A Neglected ule and Its Exceptions: On Non‒ olitive yiqtol in Clause‒Initial Position', in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, ed. Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni erra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011), p. 215. The rule has been previously observed by several scholars (Otto Rössler, Haim Rosén, E. J. Revell) and fully presented by Niccacci (cf. p. 213). 151 Joosten, 'A Neglected ule and Its Exceptions: On Non‒ olitive yiqtol in Clause‒Initial Position', in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, p. 215. 152 Joosten, 'A Neglected ule and Its Exceptions: On Non‒ olitive yiqtol in Clause‒Initial Position', in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, p. 219. verb hiphil infinitive absolute be modest, humble ‘a making humble to walk’ with צנע :BDB, p. 857 153 God.

45 qatal with no implication for the syntax of the phrase. This particular qatal is a personal one, referring to the prophet. The passive voice would imply a hofal instead of hifil (see discussion in Waltke154). These two indirect questions are simple nominal clauses (SNC). The first SNC has no verb, while the second has a verb in the participle form with no influence on the syntactical analysis. These two are introducing three infinitive with an infinitive ל constructs. The preferred construction in this case would be Niccacci155 .כִׁי אִׁם construct. Nevertheless, the author uses a special construction with observes that the two words are usually found after negative statements which they contradict (Gen. 15:4; 32:29; 35:10). In our case there is no negation in the previous statement; however, the construction suggests an ellipsis: ‘nothing else he seeks from you, but’. his poetic device is meant to enhance the reader’s attention to od’s requirements. For that reason, the translation of the passage is: ‘He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord seeks from you, only to do justice, to love goodness and to walk humbly with your God’.

9 ֤קֹול יְה ָו ֙ה ָל ִִׁ֣עיר יִׁ ְק ִָ֔רא 156 ְותּו ִׁש ָיָ֖ה יִׁ ְר ִֶ֣אה ְש ֵֶ֑מָך ִׁש ְמ ֵ֥עּו ַמ ֶָ֖טה ּו ִֵׁ֥מי 157יְעָדָ ֶּֽה׃ The voice of the Lord to the city will call and wisdom will see your name: Listen to the rod and who had appointed it.

Syntactically, there are two x-yiqtol future indicatives on FLC. Normal continuation for the first x-yiqtol is a weyiqtol. The second x-yiqtol is a sign of emphasis on the element x158 and of subordination to the initial x-yiqtol.

These two are followed by an imperative, a normal future volitive in direct speech, FLC. The x-qatal is dependent on the previous imperative and represents a SLC.

The morphological problem of the verse resides in the non-concordance of the m. sg .מַטֶה and the following fem sg suffix, which can only be referring to מַטֶה

10 ִּ֗עֹוד ַה ִׁא ֙ש ִֵ֣בית ָר ִ֔ ָשע א ֹ ְצָ֖רֹות ֵֶ֑ר ַשע ְו ֵאי ֵַ֥פת ָר ָ֖זֹון 159זְעּומָ ֶֽה׃

154 Waltke, 2007, pp. 360-361. 155 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 134. noun feminine singular absolute, aid, prudence, wisdom: ‘he that sees תּושִׁיָה :BDB, pp. 1064 and 444 156 .שְמֹו יִׁרְ אי הֹושִׁיעַ - thy name is well advised’. LXX: σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ qal perfect 3 masculine singular with suffix 3 feminine singular to point out, to יעד :BDB, p. 416 157 define, here: to appoint a rod. 158 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 137.

Are there yet [in] the house of the wicked man treasures of wickedness and the accursed160 scant ephah?

This verse is made up of one independent SNC, present tense.

11 ַה ֶאזְ ֶָ֖כה161 ְב ִ֣מ ֹאזְנֵי162 ֵֶ֑ר ַשע ּו ְב ִָׁ֖כיס ַא ְב ֵנֵ֥י ִׁמ ְר ָמֶֽה׃ Shall I be pure in the scale of wickedness and in the bag of deceitful stones?

The present tense changes to the future through a x-yiqtol future indicative, FLC. Such changes from present-future are not unusual in Hebrew.

12 ֲא ֶ֤שר ֲע ִׁשי ֶ ֙רי ָ֙ה ָמ ְל ִ֣אּו ָח ִ֔ ָמס ְוי ֹ ְש ֶָ֖בי ָה ִׁד ְברּו־ ֵָ֑ש ֶקר ּו ְלשֹו ָָ֖נם ְר ִׁמ ָיֵ֥ה ְב ִׁפי ֶהֶֽם׃ [Shall I be pure] in her whose rich are full of violence and her inhabitants speak lie and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth.

The level of communication descends from the main level to a secondary level, as this Verse 12 is dependent syntactically on verse 11 as a .אֲשֶר verse is introduced with an as indicated in the textual criticism analysis. The verse is ,הַאֶזְכֶ ה result of the ellipsis of composed of two x-qatals and one SNC. All of them are on the SLC. The feminine .the only feminine substantive present ,עִׁיר relate to וְיֹשְבֶיהָ and עֲשִׁירֶ יהָ singular suffix of

13 ְוגַם־ ֲא ִָׁ֖ני 163 ֶה ֱח ִֵ֣לי ִׁתי ַהכֹו ֵֶ֑תָך ַה ְש ֵָ֖מם עַל־חַטֹאתֶ ֶָֽך׃ Therefore, I have made you sick smiting you, desolating (you) for your sins.

The x-qatal signals for another shift from the future to the past tense. This x-qatal of the past tense FLC is followed by other verbs in infinitive constructs, both of them part of the same sentence with the x-qatal. The translation will reflect this complete ,means ‘also גַם dependence of the last two verbs on the x-qatal. Usually the particle too’, and refers to an inclusion of the subject in something. Here instead, it introduces the punishment that the Lord will inflict on the above-mentioned sinners, so it is

verb qal participle passive feminine singular absolute, be indignant, have זעם :BDB, p. 276 159 indignation. ;זְעּומָה and רָ זֹון The translation is influenced by the extant hendiadys resultated from the juxtaposition of 160 cf. discussion in the chapter ‘Poetic devices’. .qal imperfect 1 singular be clear, clean, pure; be justified, be regarded as just זכה :BDB, p.268 161 ;only piel): weight, test, prove) אזן noun masculine dual construct – balances, from מֹאזְנַיִׁם :BDB, p. 24 162 introduces the predicate, denoting it as that in which the subject consists, or in which it‘ בְ :BDB, p. 88 shows itself – the Bet essentiae – common in Arabic’. .’hiphil perfect 1 singular make sick, ‘make sore thy smiting חלה :BDB, p. 318 163

47 sensible to translate it with ‘therefore, so, for this reason’.164 This construction is frequent when the authors desire to transmit an opposition between the second or third person (you/him) and first person (I, ‘on my part’) (cf. Am. 4:67; Ez. 21:16; Job 40:14; I Sam 1:28).

14 ַא ָ֤תה ת ֹא ַכל֙ ְו ִֹ֣לא ִׁת ְש ִ֔ ָבע ְויֶ ְש ֲח ָָ֖ך ְב ִׁק ְר ֵֶ֑בָך 165 ְו ַת ֵס ֙ג ְו ִֹ֣לא 166 ַת ְפ ִ֔ ִׁליט ַו ֲא ֵֶ֥שר ְת ַפ ֵָ֖לט ַל ֵֶ֥ח ֶרב ֶא ֵתֶֽן׃ 15 ַא ֵָ֥תה ִׁתזְַָ֖רע ְו ִֹ֣לא ִׁת ְק ֵ֑צֹור ַא ָ֤תה 167 ִׁת ְד ֶֽר ְֹך־ ֙זַיִׁ ֙ת ְוֹלא־ ָת ִ֣סּוְך ִ֔ ֶש ֶמן ְו ִׁתיָ֖רֹוש ְו ֵֹ֥לא ִׁת ְש ֶתה־ ָי ֶֽיִׁן׃ You will eat, but you will not be satisfied, your emptiness [will be] in your midst, you shall put away, but not save, so that what you will bring into security to the sword I will give. You will sow but you will not harvest, you will tread olives but you will not anoint with oil, and must, but you will not drink wine.

Verses 14-16 are a classical example of the futile curses genre. Syntactically they may be presented in two ways. The first is the classic x-yiqtol/we-lo-yiqtol sequence (the affirmation and negation of an action). The second is proposed by Niccacci168 who considers it as a protasis-apodosis sequence: ‘even if you will eat, you will not be satisfied’. Nevertheless, the translation that he is offering does not differ from the one provided by the first analysis.169

Therefore, verse 14 starts with an x-yiqtol future indicative followed by a we-lo-yiqtol, both on the FLC, and a SNC (also future indicative) on the SLC. The same pattern is followed in the second part of verse 14 (x-yiqtol future indicative followed by a we-lo- connected אֲשֶר yiqtol) which suffers a small change with the adding of an SNC with with the x-yiqtol, both on the SLC. These last two forms seem to repeat the protasis- apodosis pattern ‘and what you will save, I will give to the sword.’

Verse 15 maintains the same structure, except that there is no SNC. Consequently, the pattern this time is x-yiqtol future indicative followed by a we-lo-yiqtol which repeats

164 Cf. Wolff, 1990, p. 185; Waltke, 2007, p. 395. hiphil imperfect 2 masculine singular jussive in form, apocopated: to carry away סוג :BDB, p. 691 165 valuables, to rescue them. causative: to cause to ְת ַפ ֵָ֖לט hifil/piel imperfect 2 masculine singular (1) as Piel פלט :BDB, p. 812 166 .bring into security תַפְלִׁיט escape, bring into security, save or (2) as Hifil 167 There are two options: (1) noun masculine singular absolute – must, fresh or new wine; yielding wine to tread, cf. William Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and ירש BDB, p.440); and (2) imperf. from root) Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1988), p. 145. 168 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, pp. 138-139. 169 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 87.

occurs, disrupting the balance of אַתָה תִׁדְרְֹך three times. The third time, the ellipsis of the the verse. This poetic device of an ellipsis170 becomes in the syntax a ‘double duty- modifier’ as explained by Niccacci: ‘a grammatical element that serves two or more lines although it does not appear in every case but only in the first line or, more difficult to recognize, only in the subsequent parallel lines of a poetic unit’.171

16 ְויִׁ ְש ַת ָ֞ ֵמר ֻח ִ֣קֹות ָע ְמ ִִּׁ֗רי ְוכ ֹל֙ ַמ ֲע ִֵ֣שה ֵבית־ַא ְח ִ֔ ָאב ַו ֵת ְל ָ֖כּו ְב ֶֽמ ֹ ֲעצֹו ֵָ֑תם ְל ַמ ַע ֩ן ִׁת ִׁ֙תי א ֹ ְת ָָ֜ך ְל ַש ִּ֗ ָמ ה ְוי ֹ ְש ֶ֙בי ָ֙ה ִׁל ְש ֵר ִ֔ ָקה ְו ֶח ְר ֵַ֥פת ַע ִָׁ֖מי ִׁת ָ ֶֽשאּו׃ פ Anyone [the people] may observe the statutes of Omri and all the deeds of the House of Ahab as you did walk in their counsels, consequently I will give you to destruction and her inhabitants to hissing and the reproach of my people you shall bear.

In the last verse of Micah 6, there is one weyiqtol followed by a wayyqitol on the FLC followed by one infinitve and one x-yiqtol on the SLC. The first two forms of the verse may be more difficult to understand and a more extensive explanation is in order.

There are two types of future tense in the direct discourse: future indicative (x-yiqtol or SNC followed by a weqatal, both on the FLC) and future volitive (x-)yiqtol or imperative followed by weyiqtol). In the latter case, the weyiqtol form in direct speech is a continuation form of the future volitive (cf. diagram Annex 1).172

In the poetic passages the volitive property of weyiqtol is also present in the future tense, while in the past time frame it refers to purpose-volitive consequences.173

In our case though, due to the fact that the previous axis is one of the future and a in the שמר weyiqtol is present, the translation must render the future volitive of the verb hitpael form.174 The translation offered by Niccacci uses the Italian subjunctive present ‘Si osservino pure le regole di Omri…’ that in English may be rendered as ‘Anyone [the people] may observe the statutes of Omri …’

170 Watson, 1984, pp. 303-306. 171 Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting p. 258. 172 Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting p. 248. 173 Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting p. 266. 174 Cf discussion on the v. 16 in Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, pp. 140-142.

The wayyiqtol is also problematic. In the prose passage wayyiqtol is the normal tense of narration, usually translated into English with the simple past tense. Likewise, in this poetic passage, the wayyiqtol refers to the past: ‘you walked…’ Niccacci considers this succession a protasis-apodosis period where the weyiqtol is the protasis and the wayyiqtol represents a ‘parenetic sentence’, which specifies that everything suggested within the weyiqtol really happened.175

he author’s intention is to play with the temporal axis. Firstly, he is talking about the future volitive literally: ‘anyone may well observe the statutes of Omri ...’ Secondly, he reminds them about the past: ‘and you walked in their counsels…’ and then the consequences follow. he general idea of this translation is that ‘Anyone might observe the statues of Omri and the deeds of the House of Ahab, as in fact you have walked, consequently I will give you to destruction and her inhabitants to hissing and the reproach of my people you shall bear’. The only way one can explain the shift from the impersonal weyiqtol to the 2 masculine singular is to suppose here a sort of anacoluthon. The whole verse is trying to convey the idea that those who followed and continue to follow the statues and deeds of Omri and Ahab are exposed to the same fate as them.

175 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 141.

2.3.2. Translations of Micah 6 My thesis has presented the syntactical method of Prof. A. Niccacci and the differences that the analysis of a Hebrew poetic passage imposes in distinction from prose. This type of syntactical analysis has three key advantages. Firstly, it individuates the characters and the relationships between them. Secondly, it sets forth the core information (FLC) and differentiates it from the secondary one (SLC). Thirdly, the flexibility of the method regarding poetic passages allows the exegete to discern temporal values for the verbs, where previously one had to rely on his or her own interpretation.

Also, the engagement with textual variants of the MT and its agreement with the parts that survived from Mur 88 disclose its integrity in the form that we have it today.

Micah 6 has had its share of commentators and the next step in my presentation concerns a critique of certain translations and commentaries. I choose for my presentation some of the most cited interpreters of the text such as H. W. Wolff,176 D. Hillers,177 F. I. Andersen,178 E. Ben-Zvi179 and B. Waltke,180 and confront them with A. Niccacci’s proposal. As syntactical analysis is the first step in the exegetical process, flawed and incoherent analysis renders the results of the exegesis itself questionable and prone to mistakes.

Verse 1

קּום רִׁ יב אֶת־הֶהָרִׁ יםוְתִׁשְמַעְנָה הַגְבָעֹות קֹולֶ ָך׃ :MT

Wolff: ‘Stand, accuse the mountains, so that the hills hear your voice.’

Niccacci: ‘Sorgi, fa’ causa insieme ai monti e le colline ascoltino la tua voce.’

Wolff considers ‘the mountains’ as the object of od’s accusation. His theological interpretation refers to the idea that the mountains represent Israel,181 thus becoming the ,’is ‘with’ and ‘together with אֶת object of od’s rîb. Nevertheless, here, the meaning of

176 Wolff, 1990, pp. 163-199. 177 Hillers, 1984, pp.75-82. 178 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, pp. 501-506. 179 Ben Zvi, 2000, pp. 87-172. 180 Waltke, 2007, pp. 342-414. 181 This proposal stems from A. S. van der Woude, 'Deutero‒Micha, ein Prophet aus Nord‒Israel?', Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 25 (1971), pp. 365-78; cf. Ez. 6:3; 36:4.

51 having an associative sense. BDB gives it a spatial value, translating as ‘before’. The in the presence of’ which refers mostly to‘ אֶת־פְנֵי common expression would be with instances where there is an event taking place in the presence of someone of high importance for the development of the biblical story (I Kgs. 12:6; Esther 1:10; Prov. 17:24; 1Sam. 22:4; Gen. 19:13).182

Continuing his translation with ‘so that the hills hear your voice’, Wolff suggests that this is the aim or purpose of the preceding imperatives. Though weyiqtol is used to hint at purpose/intention,183 the volitive force of the imperatives should be taken more into account and translated ‘let the hills listen to your voice’, according to Niccacci’s interpretation.

Verse 2

כִׁי רִׁ יב לַיהוָה עִׁם־עַמֹווְעִׁם־יִׁשְרָ אֵל יִׁתְוַכָ ח :MT

Wolff: ‘For Yahweh holds a lawsuit with his people,/he contends with Israel.’

Hillers: ‘For Yahweh has a suit against his people,/With Israel he wishes to contend.’

Andersen: ‘For Yahweh has a dispute with his people,/and with Israel he will argue.’

Waltke: ‘For I AM has an accusation against his people;/ even against Israel he will establish what is right.’

he literal translation of the passage is ‘because there is a case for the Lord against his people, and he will argue against Israel’. No commentator preserves the heightened position of the noun ‘dispute’, changing the syntactic relation between the words ‘dispute’ and ‘Lord’. ‘Lord’, the logical subject in M , becomes the syntactical subject in translation and ‘dispute’ is the object of his message, as we can see in all four versions present above. Even though this rendering is smoother, the elevated position in MT stresses the idea of the dispute, not who is the one arguing it. It is obvious רִׁ יב of that this is a message that comes from God.

182 Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1962, pp. 86 and 815; Waltke and O'Connor, 1990, p. 195. 183 Niccacci, 1990, pp. 90-1 and 187; Robert F. Horton, The Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1906), p. 257; Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 333; Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 502.

,in a special position רִׁ יב puts כִׁי רִׁ יב לַיהוָהעִׁם־עַמֹו The succession of the words in the SNC because it becomes the syntactical predicate of the clause.184 A correct rendering would be ‘because there is a dispute before the Lord’. Also, this translation pays attention to Jo on and Muraoka concede that ‘because of the extreme .ל the value of the preposition often has a rather vague value’.185 Consequently, returning to ל ,variety of its meanings as ‘before’ is more ל its basic spatial sense argued by Waltke,186 the translation of is associated with ל probable. This in fact is a common use when the preposition .Lev. 6:7; 1Sam. 1:19; 2Sam. 7:18; I Kgs) פָנֶה Yahweh, as it is the case here, and with 8:62; Ez. 43:24; 44:3).

with his (יִׁתְוַכָח) While Waltke renders the future indicative of the Masoretic verbal form translation ‘even against Israel he will establish what is right’, it is clear that the sense and the additional indirect interrogative clause ‘what is right’ does not יכח of the verb have a Hebrew equivalent.

as ‘With Israel he wishes to contend’ supposes a וְעִׁם־יִׁשְ רָ אֵל יִׁתְוַכָ ח Hillers’s translation of changes the כִׁי volitive future clause. Nevertheless, the presence of the conjunction following SNC and the x-yiqtol from future volitive, FLC to future indicative, SLC. Thus, the future indicative translation would be ‘and he will argue against Israel’.

Verse 3

עֲנֵה בִׁ י :MT

LXX: ἀποκρίθητί μοι

אסהיד קדמי :Targum

Wolff, Hillers, and Waltke: ‘ estify against me!’

Andersen: ‘Answer me!’

is ‘to answer, respond’ (BDB, p. 772). he stronger sense ענה The sense of the word adopted by most of the commentators ‘to testify’ is either an influence of the argum version, or an attempt to suggest once more a lawsuit context.

Verse 4

184 Niccacci, 1990, p. 167. 185 Jo on and Muraoka, 2006, p. 58. 186 Waltke and O'Connor, 1990, p. 205.

Wolff: I surely brought you from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery …’ Waltke: Surely, I brought you up from the land of Egypt, even from the house of ...’ Anderson/Hillers: ‘For I brought you/thee up/out from the land of Egypt, and from the house of slaves I redeemed thee/you; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron and Miriam.’

Most of the commentators (besides Anderson and Hillers) ignore the subordinate state and interrogative value of verse 4. As Niccacci points out, there is a connection between in verse 3, leading to an ‘ironical מה and the interrogative pronoun כִׁי the initial question’ in verse .187

Verse 5

Wolff: ‘My people remember now, what Balak plotted, the king of Moab, and what Balaam answered him, the son of Beor! Recall the passage from Shittim to Gilgal that [you] may know Yahweh’s saving acts’

Hillers: ‘ emember the scheme of Balak, king of Moab,/ And the answer he got from Bilaam, son of Beor/ … from Shittim to igal.

Andersen: ‘My people! Do remember!/ What did Balaq king of Moab scheme?’/ And how did Balaam son of Beor answer him,/ from Shittim to ilgal?/ … as to know the righteous acts of Yahweh.

Waltke: ‘My people, remember what plotted,/ that is, Balak king of Moab, and how he responded to him, that is, Balaam son of Beor./ ‘[ emember the crossing] from Shittim to ilgal, in order to know the saving acts of I AM’

The commentators agree that there is an ellipsis here. Hillers observes that the phrase ‘from Shittim to ilgal’ ‘does not fit with the context’.188 He suggests that there is a corruption of the text, a missing part, and rejects the reconstructions based on variants to pass’ (Sellin, obinson, Weiser) or the deletion proposed by‘ עבר of the root Wellhausen and Marti, because the phrase has meaning in this setting and it is not a gloss.

187 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 134, n. 100. 188 Hillers, 1984, p. 76.

On this matter, Wolff translates ‘recall the passage from…’ (cf. uilleumier ‘Lors de assume a crossing, but the author (עַד and מִׁן) ton passage’).189 The prepositions involved of the text is more interested in showing what God has done for them than the passage through the Jordan itself. hus, I side with aylor who supposes ‘what I have done from 190.(ּומֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי מִׁן הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל) ’Shittim to ilgal

In his translation, Andersen translates both interrogative indirect clauses with direct ones. Though this proposal is possible, it does not take into account the syntactical is clearly מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁ לְגָל לְמַעַן דַעַתצִׁדְקֹות יְהוָ ה construction of the verse. The expression subordinated. The verse starts with a call to remembrance whose syntactical objects are these two indirect questions, which in turn lead to the whole purpose of the remembrance (to know the righteous acts of Yahweh). His translation leaves no regent 191.( לְמַעַן דַעַתצִׁדְקֹות יְהוָ ה) for the last part of the verse

my people’ and ignores‘ עַמִׁי Regarding the same verse, Hillers does not translate translating ‘ emember the scheme ,ּומֶה־עָנָה and מַה־יָעַץ completely the indirect questions […] and the answer he got from Balaam, son of Beor’. here are two syntactical misreadings: (1) these two indirect questions are two x-qatals, not two genitival constructions (noun status construct with noun status absolute); (2) Balak and Balaam are syntactical subjects, not nominal attributes.192

Verse 6

בַמָה אֲקַדֵם יְהוָה אִׁכַף לֵאֹלהֵי מָרֹום :MT

Hillers: ‘With what shall I come before Yahweh, bow to the od who is on high?’

Andersen: ‘With what shall I enter Yahweh’s presence’? [With what] shall I bow down to the od of the height?’

Hillers and Andersen perceive the fact that the second question in verse 6 does not have any connector, there is only juxtaposition. The construction is a good example of a

189 Wolff, 1990, p. 164; Vuilleumier, 1990, p. 71. 190 Taylor, 1891, p. 134-135. 191 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 502; Hillers, 1984, p. 75. 192 Hillers, 1984, p. 75.

‘double-duty modifier’. In poetic terms this is equivalent to asyndeton with ellipsis of .בַמָה the interrogative

Verse 8

Wolff: ‘It has been told to you, O man, what is good,/ and what Yahweh requires from you:/ Simply practice justice, love kindness, and walk attentively with your od’

Hillers: ‘He told you, O man, what is good/Yahweh wants nothing from you, except that you/ Do justice/ Love kindness/ And walk wisely with your od.’

Andersen: ‘He told thee, O man,/ What is good? And what is Yahweh seeking from thee? / Only to do justice … ’

Waltke: ‘It has been told to you, Human Being, what is good./ And what does I AM require from you? [Not sacrifices] ather, [he requires you] to practice justice …’

Niccacci: ‘ i hanno detto, o uomo, cosa è bene e cosa il Signore richiede da te: niente altro che fare il diritto, amare la misericordia e umilemente camminare con il tuo Dio.’

My translation: He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord seeks from you, only to do justice, to love goodness and to walk humbly with your God.

The syntactical analysis shows that this verse starts with an initial qatal FLC followed by two infinitives (indirect questions, SLC) which introduce like a quotation three supposes a negation and כִׁי אִׁם SNCs. All commentators agree that the construction translate with: ‘Yahweh wants nothing from you, simply/except/only...’ (Wolff, Hillers, and Andersen) or with periphrasis ‘[Not sacrifices] ather, [he requires you] to practice justice …’ (Waltke).

The difficulty of the passage resides in the fact that, while the whole message of the verse is positive (he told you the good, the Lord seeks, do justice, love goodness, walk כִׁי humbly), the actual syntactical layout contains an inversion after the negation with Keeping the positive message and preserving the negation is the main problem for .אִׁם the exegete and translator. he prophet is not concerned with limiting od’s requirements to three only, because these three contain the whole Law. Rather, using .he is instructing that nothing else is of importance but the Law כִׁי אִׁם this negation

The classical solution is provided by Hillers who interprets the second interrogative with ‘Yahweh wants nothing from you, except ּומָה־יְהוָה דֹורֵ ש מִׁמְָךכִׁי אִׁם־עֲשֹות מִׁשְפָט clause that you…’ using the normal negative construction ‘nothing … except’. An elegant answer is proposed by Wolff/Stansell (‘what Yahweh requires from you:/Simply practice’) and by Andersen (‘And what is Yahweh seeking from thee?/Only to do justice’); proposals that follow the MT text by not supplying the negation in the last interrogative clause.

Andersen and Waltke in part interpret the interrogative questions as direct ones.193 I think that these questions are indirect ones, because the initial qatal (to say) requires a syntactical object. Only these two indirect interrogative clauses are provided here. In conclusion the closest translations are those offered by Wolff, Hillers and Niccacci.

Verse 9ab

Andersen: The voice of Yahweh! He is calling to the city. /And it is wisdom to fear thy name.

Waltke: The voice of I AM! He cries out to the city. -and whoever fears your name is wholly sound in judgment-

Ben-Zvi: The voice of YHWH calls to the city: / -Wisdom is to fear your name-

Hillers: he voice of Yahweh calls out to the city /… and wisdom, to fear thy name

Wolff: Yahweh’s voice calls to the city: /[It is prudent to fear your name]

All commenters assume the two x-yiqtol are on the present axis. Nevertheless the initial x-yiqtol shows that they belong to the future indicative. This interpretation is also וְתּושִׁיָה shared by Sharpe and partly by Horton.194 The problems related to the sense of .were previously discussed in the critical textual analysis part יִׁרְ אֶ ה שְמֶ ָך

Verse 9c

Andersen: Hear [2nd masculine plural], O tribe!/And who appointed her still?

193 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 503. 194 John Sharpe, Micah: A New Translation (Cambridge, London & Oxford: J. Hall & Son, 1876), p. 40. Sharpe’s translation coincides with Niccacci in terms of which temporal axis each sentence belongs to: ‘A voice of Jehovah to the city will cry, and wisdom will perceive Thy name, ‘hear ye the rod and who hath appointed it’’. He seems to draw his interpretation from Jewish exegesis as he is supporting the translation with Ibn Ezra and Qimhi who translate 9b: ‘the man of wisdom will perceive in his heart that this is the Name’ (cf. Sharpe, p. 84). Horton only disagrees in the translation of the first x-yiqtol: ‘ he voice of the Lord crieth unto the city’, p. 261.

Waltke: Listen, Tribe, and the assembly of the city.

Hillers: Hear, O tribe, and assembly of the city.

Ben-Zvi: Hear the staff and the one who appoints it.

Apart from Andersen, none of the other commentators acknowledges the final x-qatal and its past value. The previous imperative shifts the direct speech to the future indicative. The present in the second sentence would have required a SNC construction, not an x-qatal, which is always a past construction.195

as being in the vocative מַטֶ ה Moreover, most of the commentaries consulted interpret case. Ben-Zvi rejects this reading on the basis of Is 10:5; 14:5; 18:27 and Mic. 4:13. as מַטֶ ה Taylor explains that the ancient versions (LXX, Vulgate) erroneously interpreted vocative, while it is in fact the object.196

Verse 10

All commentators agree that this verse belongs to the present axis. There is a difference ’?[…] Should I forgive in the house of the wicked‘ (1) :עֹוד הַאִׁש בֵית רָ שָע in translating (Waltke), ‘Can I forget […]?’ (Wolff) and (2) ‘Are there in the house of [the] wicked […]?’ (Hillers, Andersen, Ben-Zvi). his divergence derives from Wellhausen’s to forget).197 נשא) הַאֶ שַ א with הַאִׁש interpretation, who reads

Verse 11

Regarding the syntax, Andersen is aware of the future tense of verse 13 (‘Shall I regard in a personal way. Hillers, Wolff, and הַ אֶזְכֶ ה as pure […]?’), interpreting the initial form Waltke offer a free translation on the present axis (‘Can I tolerate?’/‘Can I pronounce justice […]?’/‘would I be acquitted […]?’). Ben-Zvi’s translation (‘May I be just […]?’) ,as Andersen, but with the syntax of the Hillers, Wolff הַאֶזְכֶ ה preserves the same sense of and Waltke texts.

Verse 12

Wolff: Because her wealthy are full of violence/ and her inhabitants speak lies.

Waltke: he city’s rich people are full of violence/ and her inhabitants speak lies.

.see the chapter Textual criticism, v. 9.3a ּומִׁי יְעָדָה For the interpretation of 195 196 Taylor, 1891, pp. 142-143. 197 Wolff, 1990, p. 186.

The critical-textual part (cf. ‘Textual Criticism Analysis of MT Micah 6’) showed that refers to אֲשֶר this verse is syntactically connected to verse 11, as the relative pronoun the city. This connection is established through the two feminine plural suffixes (in in v. 11, which do not have any other antecedent than the feminine (וְיֹשְבֶ יהָ and עֲשִׁירֶ יהָ noun city (v. 9). Hillers, Andersen, and Ben-Zvi follow the same reading. Waltke also shares this opinion although he prefers to translate verse 12 more freely.

In turn, Wolff suggests another interpretation. Drawing on Syriac, he assumes a in the first sentence of אֲשֶר syntactical connection between verses 12-13 with a causal but it 198אֲשֶר the causal period. Introducing a causal clause is a legitimate function for is found after the regent sentence אֲשֶר would be a very rare case in the MT as the causal .at the beginning of the verse: Ecclesiastes 8:12; Jer אֲשֶרcf. similar causal clause with) which severs the וְגַם־אֲנִׁי Joel 4:5) – not before. Moreover, verse 13 starts with ;20:17 syntactical connection between verses 12 and 13, changing the temporal axis to the past. Also, verse 13 marks the initiation of the punishment, which is motivated by the wrongdoings described in verses 10-12, not only 12.

Verse 13

Waltke: And so in recompense I am going to strike you […]

Hillers: I for my part am striking you […]

Waltke chooses to translate this phrase with the present tense. Although he acknowledges the past tense in the commentary (p. 81), Hillers also has this verse in the present tense. The other commentators (Andersen, Wolff and Ben-Zvi) agree that this initial x-qatal indicates past events.

Verses 14-15

All commentators translate these verses with the future tense. Regarding the obscure Andersen prefers not to translate it (‘and thy ysh in thy midst’). The others , יֶשְחֲָך word accept either the variant proposed by the Syriac (dysentery: Waltke) or Targum (sickness: Wolff ‘physical pain’; Hillers ‘cramp’; Ben-Zvi ‘excrement’).

.can have a weak causal sense: Gen אֲשֶר Jo on and Muraoka, 2006, p. 599: ‘The relative conjunction 198 30:18; 31:49; 34:13, 27; 1Sam. 15:15; 26:23; 1Kgs. 3:19.’

Verse 16 Hillers: But she observes the precepts of Omri […]/ she walks in their counsels./ So I must make her a desolation […]./ She shall bear the scorn of my people. Ben-Zvi: he statutes of Omri were kept […]/and so you walked in their counsels/therefore I must make you a desolation […]/ and you shall bear the scorn of my people. Wolff: You have kept the precepts of Omri / […];/ you live according to their counsels/ so that I will give you up to destruction/[…]/ the scorn of the peoples you shall bear. Waltke: And the city observed the precepts of Omri,/ […]/ and you all went in their counsels./ So I am going to give you over to horror, […] for you [all] will bear the reproach against my people. Anderson: And he observed the statues of Omri, / […]./ And you walked in their policies./ So that I might give thee to devastation/ and her residents to hissing;/ and you will bear the reproach of my people.

Following Niccacci’s model of textual-linguistic criticism, one interprets the succession of the verbal forms in v. 16 as being weyiqtol/wayyiqtol/x-yiqtol. Niccacci also points out that ‘in BH the different verbal forms play basically the same functions in poetry as in prose, specifically in direct speech’.199 In the same article, he states that the yiqtol future volitive can play the role of a protasis. Keeping in mind that weyiqtol is the only normal continuative form for the imperative/(x-)yiqtol initial forms (FLC, future volitive), one can infer that in the case of Mic. 6:16 the weyiqtol retains its volitive propriety, as specified by Niccacci,200 and is not a simple future. The commentators ,either with the past (Ben-Zvi, Waltke, Wolff (וְיִׁשְתַמֵ ר) translate this particular weyiqtol Andersen) or present tense (Hillers); also there is a difference in the analysis of the diathesis, as Ben-Zvi interprets it with the passive voice, while the others simplify the translation by using the active voice. he impersonal value of Niccacci’s translation (‘Si osservino pure le regole di Omri’) finds a middle ground between the passive voice of the hitpael form and the volitive function required by the weyiqtol form.

Regarding the wayyiqtol form, Wolff and Hillers employ the present tense, overlooking remains a תִׁתִׁ י the hint to the past embedded in this form. The subsequent infinitive form

199 Niccacci, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, p. 265. 200 Niccacci, 1990, p. 187.

60 past form, as it depends on the wayyiqtol. Its function is to express the result201 and not necessarily a specific time, so regardless of the time used in translation, the focus should be on the result. Finally, all commentators agree that the last x-yiqtol relates information on the temporal axis of the future.

2.3.3. Conclusions

The analysis of translations reveals that the MT has received different readings according to one’s textual-critical options, exegetical point of view, or through the interpretation of ambiguous terms. Ultimately, there are still important disagreements in interpreting the same syntactical construct. Here are some examples:

a. Differing interpretations of a preposition (Wolff v. 1) or a conjunction (Hillers v.3; Wolff v. 12);

b. Distinctive renderings of a temporal verbal form (Wolff v. 1; All commentators 9ab; Waltke, Hillers, and Ben-Zvi 9c; Hillers v. 13; All commentators v. 16a; Wolff and Hillers v. 16c);

c. Not everyone seems to apply the rules of word order in Hebrew (All commentators v.2);

d. Subordinate state (All commentators vv. 3-4, cf. above, pp. 42-44); e. Interpreting indirect with direct interrogative clauses (Andersen v.5, Andersen and Waltke v. 8).

It is obvious that an inconsistent syntactical analysis creates problems, such as incoherent translations of the message, differences in interpreting the relationship between parts of the text, and confusion between types of questions. As syntactical analysis is the first step in the exegetical process, the results of such exegeses are questionable.

201 Holladay, 1988, p. 207.

2.4. Poetic devices in MT Micah 6

The reason for this poetic analysis of Micah 6 is that it is particularly helpful. This idea comes from Petersen and Richards who make an interesting analogy between listening to a sonata and reading Hebrew poetry. When listening to a sonata one can tell if he or she likes it or not; but only a trained ear can ascertain the quality of composition or the virtuosity of the interpretation. The same thing happens with Hebrew poetry. 202 Up to now, this thesis has been concerned with what is necessary (establishing a critical text, and performing a syntactical analysis in order to obtain a pertinent translation); in this chapter it refers to what is helpful. This kind of analysis goes deeper into the substance of the poetic message by looking for patterns, repetitions, and other lyrical affirmations of the writer.

2.4.1. Poetic devices Micah 6 is divided into two sections: 1-8 and 9-16. Most scholars agree with this division of the passage.203 An overview of the poetic settings in Micah 6:1-16 reveals several poetic devices. Watson finds in Micah 6 one chiastic pattern, one assonantal paronomasia (vv. 3-4), one delayed identification (v. 6:5), one hyperbolic expression using exaggeration (v. 6-7), two series of rhetorical questions (vv. 6-7 and 10-11) and two word pairs (v. 7 and 15).204 Apart from these, a closer look at the passage reveals several other poetic devices.

Verse 1 Verse 1 contains two parallel exhortations and a synonymous word pair. The parallel The purpose of this verse is .וְתִׁשְמַעְנָה הַגְבָעֹות קֹולֶָך and קּום רִׁ יב אֶת־הֶהָרִׁ ים :exhortations are has as a שִׁמְעּו The initial imperative .רִׁ יב to describe the parties involved in the coming your voice’), which is the one to‘) קֹולֶָך correspondence the last word of the verse 1 whom they should listen. There are three parties involved. (1) Using a delayed identification of God, as he is named only in verse two, the author presents Yahweh as the one who gives a double command, thus indicating complete obedience. (2) The prophetic voice refers to one man, a fact proven by the imperative singular masculine of

202 David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 1-2. 203 Renaud, 1977, pp. 301-344; Hillers, 1984, pp. 75-82; Wolff, 1990, pp. 163-199; Ben Zvi, 2000, pp. 141-165; Andersen and Freedman, 2000, pp. 502-560; Waltke, 2007, pp. 342-414. 204 Watson, 1984, cf. Index of Biblical References.

with its masculine singular suffix. (3) The קֹול and the noun (רִׁ יב ,קּום) two verbs witnesses are represented by ‘the mountains’ and ‘the hills’ which are ordered to listen .(שמע)

,as a synonymous word pair. In his view גְבָעֹות and הָרִׁ ים Alonso Sch kel identifies ‘synonymy is a semantic repetition, repetition of the sense, not of the precise word’. He argues that synonymy for a poet has a wider definition than for a linguist. While the latter thinks that synonyms are words ‘perfectly interchangeable on all occasions’, the former uses them as ‘word pairs with significant common features’.205 This word pair meets all three criteria outlined by Watson: they are both nouns (sharing the same grammatical class), they belong to two parallel exhortations, and they are widespread throughout biblical Hebrew (Gen. 7:19; Dt. 12:2; Ps. 114:4, 6; 148:9; Is. 2:2, 14; 54:10; 55:12; 65:7; Ez. 34:6; Hos. 4:13; Jl. 4:19; Am. 9:13; Mic. 4:1).206

Verse 2 This contains one poetic merismus and one chiasmus. The presentation of the characters is continued with the naming of the witnesses. The call to listen is רִׁ יב involved in the addressed by the prophet to the mountains. The reason for this lawsuit is stated through a chiasmus which has the pattern a-b// b’-a’ (case-people/against Israel-argue).

רִׁ יב לַיהוָהעִׁם־עַמֹו Because (there is) a case of the Lord against his people וְעִׁם־יִׁשְרָ אֵל יִׁתְוַכָח and he will argue against Israel and presents the fourth party of the רִׁ יב This chiasmus is reinforcing the existence of the lawsuit – the accused. These two introductory verses have presented all the individuals involved and prepared the announcement of the actual cause.

Merismus is ‘a special case of synonymy’ which ‘reduces a complete series to two of its constituent elements, or it divides a whole into two halves’.207 The merismus in the mountains and foundations of the) מֹסְדֵי ָארֶ ץ and הָרִׁ ים verse is discernible in the word pair earth) which together refer to the whole world.208 They represent physical extremities of

205 Luis Alonso Sch kel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome: PIB, 1988), pp. 64-65. 206 Watson, 1984, p. 128: ‘1. each [parallel word-pair] must belong to the same grammatical class (verb, noun, etc.); 2. the components must occur in parallel lines; 3. such word-pairs must be relatively frequent.’ 207 Alonso Sch kel, 1988, p. 83. 208 Watson, 1984, p. 321: ‘The significant point is that in merismus, of whatever form, it is not the individual elements themselves that matter but what they amount to together, as a unit’ [author’s italics].

63 the world and everything that can one can find between them. The author is not calling only these two separate entities, but is trying to convey the idea that as witnesses the entire world is called.

Verses 3 and 4 One would expect a presentation of Yahweh’s case against Israel, his people. Instead the prophet proceeds with two grammatically parallel questions introduced by a noun in .עַמִׁי the vocative

מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי לְָך PRON. INTEROG. –VERB – PREP.+2 M.SG. SUFFIX ּומָההֶלְאֵתִׁיָך PRON. INTEROG. –VERB – PREP.+2 M. SG. SUFFIX .כִׁי הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך // ּומָההֶלְאֵתִׁיָך Verses 3b-4 are closely connected by an assonantal paronomasia Paronomasia is ‘the deliberate choice of two (or more) different words which sound nearly alike’. In the absence of homonymic variants (words with different sense, but with similar sound) or polysemy (one word, several senses), the poet may use this poetic device which is basically a word play. 209

Verse four is another example of a chiasmus pattern. Its purpose is to emphasize the grave situation the people of Israel were in when they were residing in Egypt. The chiastic pattern is visible both in the morphology (verb-noun//noun-verb) and in the ransom) supposes) פדה bring up) and) עלה semantics of the verse. The sense of the verbs a changing in state or place for the object they refer to. Moreover, this chiastic pattern indicates that the land of Egypt is in fact ‘a house of slaves’.

כִׁי הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך מֵאֶרֶ ץמִׁצְרַ יִׁם CONJ-VERB- NOUN ּומִׁבֵית עֲבָדִׁיםפְדִׁיתִׁיָך CONJ-NOUN -VERB Verse 5 is זְכָר־נָא Verse five contains one delayed identification and one ellipsis. The imperative a call to remembrance which requires a specific fact or idea. Regarding the delayed identification (or delayed explication), Watson describes it as ‘leaving the name of a subject to some time after his or her actions are described’.210 The delayed identification suggests suspense, as the reader has to wait for the subject to be pinpointed. Watson remarks that ‘when the subject is eventually named identity is often made doubly clear

209 Watson, 1984, p. 242. Sch kel concurs with Watson: ‘Play on words exploits the polyvalence of meaning of one word, or the similarity of sound of various words’, see Alonso Sch kel, 1988, p. 29. 210 Watson, 1984, p. 336.

64 by a parallel couplet’211. The author uses two indirect questions which delay the acknowledgment of the object of this call until the end of the second question where the name of Balaam appears. Only with him we can relate this calling with the episode presented in Num. 22-24.

The ellipsis has been signalled as early as 1840 (Maurer) (v. 5c), who proposed the .מִׁן הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל as the solution for the obscure expression ּומֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי indirect question

Interrog. Pron. Verb Name/verbal form Name Mic.6:3-5 3a לְָך עָשִׁ יתִׁי מֶה 3b עֲנֵה בִׁי הֶלְאֵתִׁיָך ּומָ ה 5a מֶ לְֶךמֹוָאב בָלָק יָעַץ מַה

5b בֶן־בְעֹו בִׁלְעָם בֶן־בְעֹו עָנָה ּומֶה 5c עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים [עָשִׁיתִׁי] [ּומֶה]

The insertion of a third indirect question relates to the fulfilment of the divine promise of the Land. Shittim is the last place in the sojourn because once they had crossed the Jordan, the people of Israel set camp at Gilgal, marking the end of the Exodus. The encloses the series of questions in the section 6:3-5, as it is parallel ּומֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי ellipsis of The lawsuit evolves from the direct rhetorical .(6:3)מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי לְָך with the direct question questions (v. 3) to words presenting the history of the relationship between God and his people (v. 4), and it finishes with three indirect questions about the completion of his promise ( abc). Yahweh’s actions converge to one purpose: to know his righteous deeds (4d).

211 Watson, 1984, p. 337.

Verses 6-7

These verses are a separate section attached to the rîb which is organised around eight rhetorical questions, despite the fact that only five verbal forms are present. These questions are a positive reaction to the lawsuit in the verse 6:1-5.

Verse 7 is a double distich formed by 7ab and 7cd, both containing a ‘double-duty while for the second ,הֲיִׁרְ צֶ ה modifier’. he first distich has as double duty modifier fills that position. The first distich (7ab) exhibits a hyperbolic word pair ַה ֶא ֵ֤תן distich aimed at expressing the affluence of the supposed holocaust. Based on 212בְרִׁ בְבֹות//אֵילִׁים Ugaritic recurrences, Avishur counts four instances where this word pair has a regular (Micah 6:7; Dt. 32:30; 1Sam. 18:7 (1Sam. 21:12; 29:5); Ps. 91:7 :בְרִׁ בְבֹות//אֵילִׁים) order and only one with inverse order (Dt. 33:17).213

Interrog. Verb Name Adverb Noun Specificity 6:6-7 6a יְהוָה אֲקַדֵם בַמָה 6b מָרֹום לֵאֹלהֵי אִׁכַף 6c בְעֹולֹות אֲקַדְמֶּנּו ה 6d בְנֵי שָנָה בַעֲגָלִׁים 7a אֵילִׁים בְַאלְפֵי יְהוָה יִׁרְ צֶה הֲ 7b נַחֲלֵי־שָמֶן בְרִׁ בְבֹות 7c פִׁשְעִׁי בְכֹורִׁ י הַאֶתֵן 7d חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי פְרִׁ יבִׁטְנִׁי פְרִׁ י בִׁטְנִׁי חַטַאת) Watson counts seven rhetorical questions in v. 7,214 probably seeing 7d Poetic technic analysis shows that the members of distich .בְכֹורִׁ י as in apposition to (נַפְשִׁי Besides the . פִׁשְעִׁי יפְרִׁ בִׁטְנִׁי חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי:7cd are carefully connected through a hendiadys215 fact that both refer to a child, there are two reasons for considering this a hendiadys.

212 Wilfred G. E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994), pp. 144-146. 213 Yitzhak Avishur, 'Pairs of Synonymous Words in the Construct State (and in Appositional Hendiadys) in Biblical Hebrew', Semitics 1-2 (1971-72), p. 42, n. 121. Avishur states that word pairs were for the first time presented by the editors of the English edition of Gesenius dictionary and received a great boost once the Ugaritic texts were discovered. It was immediately evident that (1) Hebrew is very much influenced in terms of word pairs by the Ugaritic literature and that (2) the first word in the word pairs is usually the most common, while the second is rare (pp. 17-18). 214 Watson, 1984, p. 339. 215 Watson, 1984, p. 324: Hendiadys ‘is the expression of a single but complex concept by using to separate words, usually nouns.’

Firstly, the distich contains a parallelism between 7c and 7d, type ab//a’+c b’+d ,where the second member (7d) is extended. Secondly ,(חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי//פִׁשְעִׁי ;פְרי בִׁטְנִׁי//בְכֹורִׁ י) there is no copula between the 7c and 7d.

These eight rhetorical questions are paired two by two, confirming Watson’s observations that they ‘tend to come in pairs’.216 In this case only questions 6cd, 7ab, and 7cd are paired, while the introductory questions 6a and 6b are separate. Consequently, verses 6-7 display a careful poetic construction which prepares the ground for the climactic finish of the poem with verse 8.

Verse 8 Parallelism is the main characteristic of verse eight. After the introductory statement :the poem proceeds with two indirect questions and three parallel SNC ,הִׁגִׁיד לְָך ָאדָם

כִׁי אִׁם־עֲשֹות מִׁשְפָט Conj.+Prep. +Infinitive+Noun וְַאהֲבַת חֶסֶד Conj. +Infinitive+Noun וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִׁם־אֱֹלהֶיָך Conj.+Infinitive+Infinitive+Noun

In my opinion, there is also a balance between the questions and the answers in verse אִׁם־and the first two infinitives מַה־טֹוב eight. On the one hand, the first indirect question suggest general rules that could apply to anyone. On the other עֲשֹות מִׁשְפָט וְַאהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶ כֶת עִׁם־אֱֹלהֶיָך and the last infinitve ּומָ ה־יְהוָה דֹורֵ שמִׁמְָך hand, the last indirect question are addressed to a second person plural. The suffixes in the second person masculine singular create a parallelism between the two sentences.

Verses 9-12

in the first קֹול Verse 9 displays no visible poetic devices. Its construction with the noun position of the verse is rather unusual because it appears only in the Psalms (29:2-5, 7- 9; 77:19), Songs of Solomon (2:8), Job (15:21; 29:10), and in the prophetic literature (Is. 40:3, 6; 52:8, 66:6; Jer.10:22; 26:36; 48:3; 50:22, 28; 51:54; Mic. 6:9; Nah. 3:2). All of these texts are written in poetry therefore, this itself could be a poetic feature.

Verses 10-12 are a series of extended rhetorical questions meant to expose the sins of the city. While the interrogative sense of verse 10 is deduced more from the context,

216 Watson, 1984, p. 341.

67 rather than from its construction, the questions in verses 11 and 12 begin with the followed by the predicate. As shown in the textual הֲ regular interrogative pronoun was elided in v. 12. The ellipsis is explainable if the metre is הַאֶזְכֶה ,criticism chapter taken into account. In its present form the metre in verses 11 and 13 is 3+3, while in v. 12 is 3+3+3.217

The .(רָ זֹון זְעּומָה) and one hendiadys רשע Verse 10 presents the repetition of the root repetition is employed in order to transmit the idea of guilt by association. The house becomes wicked because its wealth is acquired by wickedness. The hendiadys is formed The .זְעּומָה and the qal passive feminine singular רָ זֹון by the juxtaposition of the adjective and lack the copula, two major features אֵיפַת two terms share the same antecedent pointed out by Watson as defining hendiadys.218 The reason for using this poetic device and to complete the negative sense of (אֹצְרֹות רֶ שַע ,בֵית רָ שָע .here is to obtain rhyme (cf the verse. The result is that these two words should be translated as referring to a single idea (the accursed scant ephah),219 not as a two separate determinants (the scant ephah that is cursed).220

Verses 12-13

While v.12 presents two grammatical parallel sentences, v.13 contains only one This poetic device explains the unusual combination of a finite . הֶחֱלֵיתִׁיהַכֹותֶָך hendiadys verb followed by an infinitive. The most sensible translation of this hendiadys is offered by Ben Zvi ‘I have made [or make] painful [or grievous, sore] your smiting.’221

עֲשִׁירֶ יהָמָלְאּו חָמָס NOUN-SUFFIX [2.FEM.]-VERB-NOUN וְיֹשְבֶיהָ דִׁבְרּו־שָקֶר NOUN-SUFFIX [2.FEM.]-VERB-NOUN

Verses 14-15

These verses present five parallel so-called futility curses (Nichtigkeitsflüche or malédictions d’annulation) formed by the affirmation of a specific human action or type

217 Allen, 1978, p. 376. 218 Watson, 1984, p. 326. 219 Cf. Allen, 1978, p. 376; Hillers, 1984, p. 80; Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 157. 220 Watson, 1984, p. 325: ‘ he important aspect of hendiadys is that its components are no longer considered separately but as a single unit in combination’. 221 Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 155.

68 of work followed by the denial of the result or products of the work.222 In the case of yiqtol. Verses 14 and 15+וְֹלא+yiqtol+אַתָה Micah 6, these constructions are formed by share two and respectively three parallel constructions. Despite the fact that they are parallel they do not always share the same pattern.

The table below shows that the main pattern is followed in three occurrences of the pattern (14a, 15a and 15b). The deviations from the main pattern include the omission of the pronoun (14c and 15c), the substitution of the verb with a noun (15c), and the inclusion of the complement (15b and 15c). These minor modifications do not affect the inner structure of the construction. The two additions (14b and 14d) are nuances that the author introduces in the text. While the first one does not present any special interest, the second addition is in fact a parallel protasis-apodosis formation (what you will save/to the sword I will give).223 he pattern is ab//a’b’. he presence of this addition is of a special interest because it introduces the agent who enacts the prophecy. The shift in the verb from 2 singular (in the curse) to 1 singular (the addition) stresses that ‘it is I [Yahweh] who is the cause of the destructions, not a random natural phenomenon or other human intervention’.

The basic poetic device underlying this construction is the word pair224 as there are seven word pairs in verses 14-15. The logical connection between the two members of the pairs is semantic and is related to the completion of an action and its lack of result. שתה with דרך the supposed ,דרך–קצר ,זרע–קצר ,סוג–פלט ,אכל–שבע The pairs are the verbs .יַיִׁן–תִׁירֹוש and זַיִׁת–שֶמֶן and the nouns

Pronoun Verb Negation Verb Addition 6:14-15 14ab וְיֶשְחֲָךבְקִׁרְ בֶָך תִׁשְבָע וְֹלא תֹאכַל אַתָה 14cd וַאֲשֶר תְפַלֵט תַפְלִׁיט וְֹלא וְתַסֵג לַחֶרֶ ב אֶתֵן 15a תִׁקְצֹור וְֹלא תִׁזְרַ ע אַתָה 15b תָסּוְך שֶמֶן וְֹלא־ תִׁדְרְֹך־זַיִׁת אַתָה 15c תִׁשְתֶה־יָיִׁן וְֹלא וְתִׁירֹוש

222 Leroy, [course support] 2011, pp. 135-136. He lists among the commentators who analyse this literary genre H. W. Wolff, T. Podella, and A. Shart. 223 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, pp. 139-141. 224 Watson, 1984, p. 128.

.שבע–אכל Hunger is the professed curse which is introduced by the programmatic pair There are five occurrences of this word pair in the same verse in the prophetic literature (positive: eat and be satiated: Is. 44:16; Jer. 46:10; Joel 2:26; negative: Hos. 4:10; Mic. 6:14). Micah 6:14 has its positive correspondent in Joel 2:26. While in Micah God does not סוג–פלט predicts hunger, in Joel God promises satiety after eating. The next one found six times in the prophetic זרע–קצר occur elsewhere. A more recurrent pair is literature (Is. 37:30; Jer. 12:13; Hos. 8:7; 10:12, 13; Am. 9:13 and Mic. 6:15).

Verse 16

This verse displays one incomplete chiastic structure and one grammatical parallelism. The former structure can be observed in 16ab and has the pattern ab//b’-, in this case the fourth member is missing (Anyone (the people) may observe the statutes of Omri and all the deeds of the House of Ahab [may observe]). The parallelism is present in 16de and is depicted in the table below.

PLACE PREPOSITION: TO OBJECT PREP. VERB תִׁתִׁי אֹתְ אֹתְָך לְ שַמָה

ELLIPSIS וְיֹשְבֶיהָ לִׁ שְרֵ קָה

2.4.2. Conclusion

The tricolon is the most important division of the strophes and it is used for introducing the argument (v. 1), to mark a subordination inside the text (v. 4) and to close the poem (v. 8cde). Each poem uses a special vocabulary to transmit its message. The first poem is a dispute between God and his people Israel. The vocabulary repeats the parts in and to (שִׁמְעּו) the calling to dispute ,(הָרִׁ ים) the witnesses ,(אֱֹלהִׁים ,יְהוָה ,עַמִׁי) conflict The use .(לְ ,מִׁן ,אֵת ,בְ ,עִׁם) and usual prepositions (מֶה and הַ ) the questions ,(עֲנֵה) answer of these words organise the poem around the rîb.

The second poem presents the sins and the punishment that the people should suffer for the second ,(מִׁי and הַ ) and the questions (בְ , אֵת, לְ ) their sins. Besides the prepositions the source of the bad ,(וְֹלא) negations ,(רָ שָע) poem repeats terms related to their deeds house), a physical presence in the midst of the people. There is also a) בֵית influence is a and , שמע ,הלך ,טאת ,קול :strong connection between the two poems through key words These repeated words in themselves contain the main idea of the two poems. The .נתן

70 people must listen to the voice of God, repent of their sins and walk in the ways of God (cf. also the annexes for the strophic division).

2.5.1. Commentary on Micah MT 6

This commentary will integrate the results of the textual criticism with the textual- linguistic method, seeking the main points and how the author presents them. The majority of the key terms are evaluated within the wider context of the Hebrew Bible, looking at their use in different passages so as to determine parallel passages and hidden allusions.

The two poems (1-8 and 9-16) of this chapter present od’s rîb against his people, which in form has two distinct layers. The first one is represented by the use of poetic devices, which have already been analysed in the previous chapter. The second layer is the logical construction of the passage, which contains a call to attention (vv. 1-2), history of the relations between God and his people (3-5), short statement of the Law (v. 8), second call to attention (v. 9), sins of the people (10-13), expected punishment (vv. 14-15) and motivation and verdict (v. 16).

2.5.2. Division of Micah 6

The division of this chapter has received several interpretations. One of the most popular among the modern commenters is that of Wolff (also embraced by Hillers and Waltke).225 His analysis, which starts with form criticism and redaction criticism, argues that Micah 6:1-8 is a ‘Deuteronomistic paraenesis’. He divides it into three parts: (1) a general summons, verses 1-2a, (2) ‘inauguration of the judicial procedure’, or Yahweh’s speech in self-defence (verses 3-5), and (3) a presentation of od’s expectations regarding human conduct, which resembles a priestly formula (verses 6-8). The last two parts are in fact a didactic sermon.226

Regarding the second part, Hillers describes it as taking place in a millennial social setting but without giving a clear division.227 In turn, Wolff and Waltke are sharing the same division where verses 9a-10 contain summons to hear, followed by accusations (10-12). The announcement of the punishment or the sentence (13-15) represents the

225 Hillers, 1984, p. 77; Waltke, 2007, p. 367. 226 Wolff, 1990, pp. 166-169. 227 Hillers, 1984, p. 82.

72 most important part of od’s message in this section, which closes with an appendix or recapitulation (16).228

The first poem resembles the rîb genre, but ‘not in a mimetic form’ according to Ben Zvi. He also argues that this is not a legal lawsuit. He depicts the passage as being similar to a confrontation where both parties defend their own views: verses 1-2 are introducing the first divine speech (3-5), verses 6-7 contain Israel’s response and verse 8 has the second divine speech.229 The second poem is located in Jerusalem, in post— exilic times. Here Ben-Zvi envisions a community of literati who attempt to explain the fall of Jerusalem. In 9-16, they are trying to convey od’s message through a speech (9b-16) introduced by a parenetical remark (9a).230 A similar position is adopted by Andersen, who argues that this is not a lawsuit, but a rîb,231 which contains a summons (v. 1), an accusation (v. 2-3), a recital of Yahweh’s deed (v. 6-7), a rejection of sacrifice as means of reconciliation and the verdict or exhortation (v. 8).232 The second part includes a bill of crimes (9-12) and threats of punishment (13-16).

All the aforementioned authors use one or more diachronic approaches to the Hebrew text. heir effort is based mainly on historical critical methods and on a classical view of the syntactic relations within the poetic text in Biblical Hebrew, as outlined by Jo on-Muraoka or Waltke.

By contrast with these, the textual-linguistic method interacts with the Hebrew text in a synchronic manner. While the previous methods focus their attention mainly on textual problems, textual-linguistics derives the logic of the text from the way the message is transmitted during communication. Consequently, the text is no longer regarded as comprising mixed parts of tradition, belonging to different times and places and joined together in a later period. Each chapter is analysed as it stands before us today, receiving a certain coherence inside the chapter itself and within the entire book as a whole. As a result of this analysis, Niccacci discerns a parallelism inside the book of Micah and a presents a holistic view of chapter 6. He detects that Micah 1 is parallel

228 Wolff, 1990, p. 189; Waltke, 2007, p. 406. 229 Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 141-142. 230 Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 156. 231 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 509: ‘rîb does not mean ‘lawsuit’, but describes the ordinary experience of confronting someone with a complaint’. 232 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, pp. 502-504.

73 with 6 due to the presence of three pairs of parallels: 1:2-4//6:1-2, 1:5//6:3-12 and 1:6- 7//6:13-16.233 At a chapter level, Micah 6 is a prophetic lawsuit, which sets off with a calling in 6:1-2, followed by od’s accusations in 6:3-12 and by the coming punishment in 6:13-16.234

2.5.3. Verse 1-8

Micah 6 reports a dispute between two parties in conflict. The first poem is concentrated on stating od’s case against his people. He is the main focus of this part (7 occurrences and allusions of God in 1-8), everything revolving around His crucial influence in the history of Israel. The initiation of this rîb is made through verse 1 as a ‘redactional transition’ (Wolff) with the purpose of linking chapter 6 with the entire book. Wolff asserts that the redactor preserves the same terminology, but the general meaning of the in Mic. 5:14 means obeying, while in שמע words is changed, 235 referring to the fact that appears 49 times in the שמע it denotes a call to attention/ hear. The verbal form 6:1 Minor Prophets and it has four different meanings which pertain to:

1. obeying (Hos. 9:17; Mic. 5:15; 6:9; Zech. 1:4; 3:2; 7:12; Hag. 1:2, Mal. 2:2);

2. listen (2 Kgs. 21:9);

3. make something public or declare (at hifil Am. 3:9; Am. 4:5);

4. hearing, the normal use of the verb involves the meaning of hearing (Hos. 7:12, Ob.1:1; Jonah 2:2; Mic. 6:1; Nah. 7:7; Hab. 1:2; 3:2 Zech. 2:8; Mal. 3:16; Am. 3:1; Am. 4:1; Am. 5:1; 7:16). The general use of הַדָבָר sometimes with ;Hos. 5:1) מִׁשְפָט hearing is specified when is associated with two key-words, as Hos. 4:1 and Mic. 6:2), where the sense of) רִׁ יב Am. 5:23-24; Mic. 3:1, 10) and the word is adapted to a court-house hearing. This court-house hearing influences the sense of the verb which passes from a simple passive hearing to an active hearing to judge action.

233 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, . Richelle asserts that this parallelism is verified also in chapters 2 and 7, cf. Matthieu ichelle, 'Un triptyque au cœur du livre de Michee (Mi 4-5)', Vetus Testamentum 62, No. 2 (2012), pp. 233-234. 234 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, . 235 Wolff, 1990, p. 167.

.which is used in Micah both as a verb (v ,רִׁ יב The subject of this call to attention is the 1) and as a noun (v. 2). In the prophetic literature, this term signals an entire literary genre. H. Gressmann236 and H. Gunkel were the first to ascertain the existence of the Gerichtsrede or lawsuit speech in the prophetic writings. In the prophetic literature, Claus Westermann considers as Gerichtsrede Is. 1:2-3; 18-20; 3:13-15; 5:1-7; Mic. 6:1- 5; Hos. 2:4-17; 4:1-3; 4-6; 12:3-15; Jer. 2:5; 25:31 and Mal. 3:5.237 The debate about the sources of the Gerichtsrede proposed three different views: origins in legal practice (H. Gunkel), cultic origin (E. Würthwein),238 or international treaty forms (H. B. ,רִׁ יב Huffmon239 and J. Harvey).240 After an evaluation of the three uses of the word Limburg concludes that this rîb is ‘very much at home in the sphere of international relationships, particularly in connection with international treaties’.241 There is little agreement among scholars about which texts belong to the Gerichtsrede, but the passages in Is. 1:2-3; 18-20; Jer. 2:4-13 and Mic. 6:1-8 are recognized as being part of this genre by most of them.242

The rîb has a complicated story in the research history but two elements seem to be particular to Micah 6. First, the most plausible alternative is that of a cultic setting because of the strong reference to acts of worship in verses 6-7 and the allusion in v. 16

236 Gressmann individuated 49 oracles of Gerichtsworte type in Deutero-Isaiah. 237 Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967), pp. 199. 238 Würthwein thinks that Gerichtsrede is literary genre appeared in connection with the Covenantal law citing in support research on Ps. 96, 11-13; 98:7-9; 76:8-10; 50:1-7. He also agrees that Mic. 6:1-3 is a Gerichtsrede composition cf. E. Würthwein, 'Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede', Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49 (1952), pp. 1-16. Julien Harvey’s critique is that he should have had expanded his research texts to others, less closely related with the theme of the Covenant, cf. Julien Harvey, Le plaidoyer prophétique contre Isra l apr s la rupture de l alliance (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967), p. 13. 239 H. B. Huffmon proposes two settings for the prophetic lawsuit genre. In type 1, Yahweh is the accuser, Israel the accused and the earth and the sky are the judges (Ps. 50; Is. 1:2-3; and maybe Mic. 6:1-8). In type 2, Yahweh takes the role of a judge, while the accused are the foreign gods (Deut. 32; Is. 1), in H. B. Huffmon, 'The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets', Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959), pp. 285-295. 240 Daniels R. Dwight, 'Is There a 'Prophetic Lawsuit' Genre?', Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987), pp. 339-340 ,and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches', Journal of Biblical Literature 88 ריב James Limburg, 'The Root 241 No. 3 (1969), p. 304. 242 Dwight, 'Is There a 'Prophetic Lawsuit' Genre?', 1987, p. 343; cf. p. 351: Mic. 6:1-8 has a redactional introduction (v. 1), followed by a call to attention (v. 2); vv. 3-5 contain Yahweh’s speech while vv. 6-7 presents the audience’s question about ‘what types of sacrifice is required ’ answered by a prophet response in v. 8. This setting is strikingly similar in pattern with Is. 1:10-20. Nevertheless, Dwight denies genre, due to the fact that common structural features are missing in Is. 1:2-3; 18- רִׁ יב the existence of a 20; Jer. 2:4-13 and Mic. 6:1-8 (p. 360).

(‘statutes of Omri’), and, second, this corresponds, in Huffmon’s classification (cf. n.238), to type 1 rîb, as Yahwe is the accuser and Israel the accused, with the sole amendment that Yahwe is also the judge (not the earth and sky) and the one who enacts the punishment.

There is a certain delay in identifying who is the guilty party, as the natural elements in The chiasmus in 1bc connects poetically the .(הַגְבָעֹות and הֶהָרִׁ ים) v. 1 act as witnesses mountains and hills. The meaning of their juxtaposition here could infer a syntagmatic relation (colon 1b and 1c continue each other) or a paradigmatic one (they substitute each other).243 The latter model is more appropriate as all the parts from 1b can be replaced with its 1c synonyms with no impact on the meaning. 1c shows that the hills and the mountains do not refer to two different entities, but are regarded as perfect synonims. The resulted repetition aims to emphasise that the object of od’s message is a rîb.

has a וְתִׁשְמַעְנָה Besides Niccacci,244 Waltke also supports the idea that the weyiqtol form jussive connotation, observing the preceding imperative.245 Again, this delay is present in 2a, which repeats the call to hearing and giving a broader description of the witnesses Andersen points out that there is a gradual development of .(הָרִׁ ים and מֹסְדֵי ָארֶ ץ וְהָאֵתָנִׁים) the presentation as the second verse repeats the first one adding more details.246

These two verses contain two interesting features. (1) The witnesses called represent in ְו ָה ֵא ָתנִׁים ִ֣מ ֹ ְס ֵדי ) fact the whole cosmos or the whole world, given the hendiadys in verse 2 There are three calls for the witness to hear the rîb in the first two (2) .(הָרִׁ ים and ָארֶ ץ verses, but none of them is addressed directly to Israel or ‘my people’ who is mentioned in third person (2b). The chiastic structure in v. 2b indicates that Israel and ‘my people’ refer to the same character.

,’Anderson asserts that it has a ‘reciprocal meaning ,יִׁתְוַכָח Regarding the sense of namely that the lawsuit is meant to be both a protest against the Israel and a dispute.247 Though he does not directly cite Anderson, Waltke argues, on the contrary, that this

243 Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), p. 18. 244 Cf. Niccacci, 1990, p. 187. 245 K. Bruce Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids, London: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 345. 246 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 515. ,in BDB יִׁתְוַכָח Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 517. This idea stems from the interpretaton given to 247 p. 407.

76 form ‘is not reciprocal [i.e. it does not mean both ‘to quarrel’ and to ‘argue’], for the form in that case would be plural, a sense that detracts from the force of the root and from rîb’.248 The occurrence of the two terms is to be interpreted within the setting of יִׁתְוַכָח the chiasmus in verse 2b, which in this case suggests rather a synonymy between .’than a competition, as happens with the other doublet: Israel and ‘my people רִׁ יב and

Verses 3 and 4 are syntactically connected by the presence of a motivated interrogative question. At the verse level, a parallelism (v. 3) and a chiasmus (v. 4) can also be identified, which embellish the poetic message. Instead of simply listing the great deeds that He has accomplished for the benefit of his people, God addresses the two direct questions to his people, to which the answer is obviously ‘No’: ‘No, you have not done anything wrong to us / No, you haven’t wearied us with bringing us up from the land of Egypt…’. Also, the implied reductio ad absurdum argument strengthens od’s argumentation that He did marvellous acts to protect His people. he act of ‘bringing from the land of Egypt’ is a common theme for the pre-exilic prophets (Amos 2:9-10; 3:1; 9:7; Hos. 2:17; 11:1; 12:14). The LXX uses two verbs in this translation instead of one: τί ἐποίησά σοι ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε Mic. 6:3249, probably .’עָשִׁיתִׁי‘ seeking to define the sense of the Anderson also observes that the Deuteronomistic corpus would ,הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך Referring to ,His observation proves to be valid in Dt. 6:12 .עלה instead of 250,יָצָא have used the root almost ,’הֹוצִׁיאֲָך ץ מֵאֶרֶ מִׁצְרַ יִׁם מִׁבֵית עֲבָדִׁים‘ :is present in the expression הֹוצִׁיאֲָך where identical with our setting. Micah seems to textually quote the Deuteronomy and There is of course .פדה completes the chiasmus in verse 4ab with another rare word root The answer may lie in the poetic .עלה to יצא the question of why did he changed the verb Deut 6:12) to give a) יצא to the original עלה construction of the verse. The author prefers special musicality to the first part of the tricolon.251 is unique in the MT. Wolff considers it as a ’ּומִׁבֵית עֲבָדִׁים‘Due to the waw, the expression ‘typical Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic apposition’252 (Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; 13:6, 11; Exod. 13:3; 20:2; Judg. 6:8). .to ransom) occurs twice in the MT (Micah 6:4 and Jer. 15:21). Ex פדה) פְדִׁיתִׁיָך The term to redeem, deliver), which is more common when referring to the od’s) גאל uses 15:13

248 Waltke, 2007, p. 348. 249 Hillers, 1984, p. 76. 250 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 518. 251 Allen, 1978, p. 366. 252 Wolff, 1990, p. 170.

is related to ritual or juridical ransoms (a פדה salvation from Egypt. The normal use of donkey: Ex. 13:13; a woman Ex. 21:8; unclean animals: Lv. 27:27). There are also is related to ransoming of the first‒born, as a cultic act פדה occurrences where performed in the temple on the eighth day after birth. Ex. 13:15 explains this ritual by the fact that the first‒born of the Israelites were spared by the angel who took the lives in Micah 6 reinforces פדה of all first‒born, during the last plague of Egypt. The use of the idea that the rîb takes place in a cultic setting, as hinted in the subsequent verses 6-7. את occurs only once in the MT. The presence of the preposition אֶת־מֹשֶה ַאהֲרֹן The phrase marks their leadership position during the exile.253 Usually their mention is related to a message from God that they have to deliver to the Pharaoh or to their own people. This מִׁ רְ יָם is the only time when Aaron is mentioned in the prophets.254 The name of Miriam appears three times in this form with waw: Num. 12:5, I Chr. 5:29 and Mic. 6:4. The are: Ex. 15:20-21, Num. 12:1, 4, 10, 15; 20:1; 26:59. The מִׁרְ יָם other occurrences of Targum gives an explanation for the occurrence of these three names: Moses - to teach the tradition of judgments, Aaron - to appease for the people and Miriam - to teach the women. erse 5 continues the list of od’s deeds with the call to remembrance of the story of king Balak and the prophet Balaam and the crossing of the Jordan iver. Balaam’s presentation is neutral and it is not related in any way to the negative reviews that he receives in other textual traditions.255 Instead, Balaam and his king are used as examples of characters in the history of Exodus.

The allusion to the crossing of the Jordan is almost hidden in the MT, which mentions only two geographical locations on either of the banks of this river. Shittim is the base of operation for the people of Israel before they crossed to the Promised Land, from where Joshua sent the two spies to survey the city of Jericho (Jos. 2:1). Gilgal is the place of the first camp in Israel, ‘on the east border of Jericho’ (Jos. :19), which is a quite precise localisation, given the small distance between Jordan and Jericho. From there, Joshua directs his campaigns against Jericho (Jos. 6), Ai (Jos. 8), and the five kings (Jerusalem, Hebron, Eglon, Jarmuth, Lachish cf. Jos. 10).

253 Waltke, 2007, p. 352. 254 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 521. 255 Cf discussion in G. Vermes, Scripture and tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973), p. 175.

There are at least three events for which Gilgal is important in the history of Israel. (1) This is the place where od’s promise to bring the people of Israel to ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Ex. 3:8) is fulfilled and, as a sign, the manna ceased to be provided immediately after they ate some of the products of the land. (2) Moreover, it has a cultic value, as the first altar made out of the stones collected during the crossing of Jordan was dedicated here (Jos 4:20). Also, the circumcision of the generation born in the desert (Jos. 5:4) and the first Passover (5:10) were both celebrated here. For these reasons, it becomes one of the sacred places along with Bethel and Mizpah (1Sam. 7:16). (3). Finally, Saul received his anointment as the first king of Israel in Gilgal (1 Sam. 11:14-15) and he performs here the unlawful sacrifice that causes Samuel to prophesy his later demise (1 Sam 13:8-14), which makes way for the subsequent Davidic dynasty.

Wolff256 .צִׁדְקֹות יְהוָ ה All of these are summarised in the last words of this verse, as is צִׁדְקֹות .(asserts that this is a ‘fixed expression’ (cf. Judg. 5:11; 1 Sam. 12:7; Ps. 103:6 found four times in the MT (Jud. 5:11 (2 times); 1 Sa 12:7 and Mic. 6:15). BHS, J. my righteous deeds), a form rejected by) צדקותָי Lindblom257 and T. Robinson258 propose Renaud because changing places between God and his prophet is a common technique in the prophetic literature;259 Anderson also rejects this proposal because God is speaking here and this is an equivalent way of saying ‘I’.260

The Exodus was a pretext for both God and Israel to know each other. Mic. 6:5 and Dt. 8:2 are two verses that mirror each other in this respect. The first passage shows that the sojourn in the desert was a pretext for the people to know ‘ od’s justices’. he second reflects od’s point of view: ‘ od has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments, or not.’ ( S )

Verses 6-7 not only convey an increased tension, 261 but also enquire about how far a human being should go about expressing reverence to God. The general tone of the first

256 Wolff, 1990, p. 165. 257 Johannes C. Lindblom, Micha: literarisch untersucht ( bo: bo Akademi, 1929), p. 99. 258 Theodore H. Robinson, Die w lf kleinen Propheten Hosea bis Micha ( bingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1954), p. 144. 259 Renaud, 1977, p. 296. 260 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 523. 261 Wolff, 1990, p. 178.

79 and the second questions, which refer to devotional acts (approach God, bow down), is replaced with a list of self-giving acts, which start with offering burnt-offerings, continue with sacrificing thousands of rams and rivers of oil and finish with giving up the first‒born son, like any other pagan worshipper of those times. Being dedicated to as Wolff explains, these would be a sign of ‘humility before the majesty ,מָרֹום the God of od’262. Nevertheless, the context of Mic. 6 is not interested in his majesty but in preparing the right mind‒set for the listener to welcome the message in verse 8. Verses 6-8 are constructed as a hidden negative protasis-apodosis period. The first hint about this is requires a negative statement in precedence כִׁי אִׁם given in v. 8 where the conjunction which is to be refuted. One sees that the real question of the passage is not whether the worshipper is to present himself before God with calves, rivers of oil or his first‒born son, but: ‘With what shall I come before God and bow myself before Most High God’ (6ab). The negative indication in v. 8 regards the subsequent examples of worshipping. God requires from man ‘to do justice, to love goodness and to walk humbly with your God’ not burnt-offerings, thousands of rams, rivers of oil or the first‒born son.

2.5.4. Verses 9-16

The second poem of this chapter continues the lawsuit with the presentation of the sins the author stresses that this ,קֹול יְהוָה and punishments.263 Introducing this part with message has its origins in God himself and it is not to be overlooked. Although the city to which the message is being addressed is not mentioned, three solutions have been proposed: (1) Jerusalem is the first choice of the majority of the commentators (Renaud,264 Mays,265 Wolff,266 Ben-Zvi, Allen,267 Niccacci,268 R. Smith269). (2) The first to interpret the city as being Samaria was Jerome, followed by Lindblom in modern

262 Wolff, 1990, p. 179. 263 Allen, 1978, p. 377. 264 Renaud, 1977, p. 342. 265 Mays, 1976, p. 145. 266 Wolff, 1990, p. 190. 267 Allen, 1978, p. 377. 268 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 137 269 Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1984), p. 53.

80 times.270 (3) Hillers271 thinks that it is ‘unadvisable’ to identify the city if the name is not stated. in the first position, the prophetic literature reports similar קֹול Regarding the use of cases in doom prophecies related to Moab (Jer. 48:3), Babylon (Jer. 50:22, 28; 51:54) and hope prophecies about Jerusalem (Is. 40:2-8; 52:8). None of the prophecies found in the Minor Prophets (Micah 6:9 and Nahum 3:2) have a precise target. is found four times in this particular form: Mic. 6:9; Job 12:16, 26:3 וְתּושִׁיָה The form and Prov. 8:14 and also without waw Is. 28:29 Job 5:12, 11:6, Prov. 2:7, 18:1, 30:22. It is associated with the terms ‘wisdom’ and counsel in the wisdom literature. Andersen explains it as ‘successful application of sound wisdom.’272 occurs three times in this form (Mic. 6:9, Jer. 47:7, Ex. 21:8). The יְעָדָּה The form proposed interpretation (‘Listen the rod and who had appointed it’) supposes God as a is associated with יְעָדָּה logical subject of the verse. The only instance where the verb God is in Jer. 47:7, where the object that is appointed is ‘the sword of the Lord’ (Jer. which is more likely to refer here to a מַטֶה .a very similar setting to Micah 6 ,(47:6 punishment, as suggested by its translation with ‘rod/staff’, rather than to the ‘tribe’ or governors of the city, as the Targum interprets it. All in all, verse 9 makes a fine introduction: it asserts the source of the message (God), to whom it is addressed (city) and summarizes its content (punishment).

is רָ שָע The prophet proceeds in verses 10-11with the presentation of their sins. The term the key to the interpretation due to its consistent repetition in these verses. It brings together three coordinates (house, treasures and balances), all of them qualified by ‘wicked’. he text alludes to guilt by association, meaning that the use of wicked balances renders the treasures and the house that owns them wicked. The other terms confirm the extent to which the wickedness is a part of כִׁיס ַאבְנֵי מִׁרְ מָ ה and וְאֵיפַת רָ זֹון זְעּומָה their way of gaining the wealth. The ephah, the bags of weight (measures used for hard bath, measure for) בת/(house) בית materials; 1 ephah= 36.4 litres) and the play on words liquids)273 implies that all kind of commercial trade is affected by deceit.

v. 10) refers to a generic purity, which according to the wisdom literature) זכה The root can hardly be a human quality (cf. Job 15:14; 25:4; Prov. 20:9). This pessimistic

270 Allen, 1978, p. 250. 271 Hillers, 1984, p 81. 272 Andersen and Freedman, 2000, p. 546. 273 Allen, 1978, p. 378.

81 perspective is overturned in the Psalms and Isaiah, which assert that a man can keep his heart pure (Ps. 73:13) but only ‘by guarding it according to thy word’ (Ps. 119:9, S ) and by ‘removing the evil of your doings’ (Is. 1:16). Both these essential elements in a condemnation of ;הִׁגִׁיד לְָך :man’s transformation are found in Micah 6 (the word cf. v. 8 sins cf. verses 10-12).

and repeated (חָמָס) These sins are associated with the wealthy people who use violence Violence is presented as the .(דִׁבְרּו־שָקֶר ּולְשֹונָם רְ מִׁ יָה בְפִׁיהֶם) lies to deceive their inferiors main reason for the deluge (Gen. 6:13), while lying is forbidden by one of the Ten is another technical term for deceit, mostly found in רְ מִׁיָה .(Commandments (Ex. 20:16 and רְ מִׁיָה ,חָמָס) Psalms (32:3; 52:4; 78:57; 101:7; 120:2-3). Each of these three terms ,alone can bring destruction to mankind. Micah is using all of them at once (שָקֶר showing the eminence of the destruction.

and the נכה presents the opposition between the sinners and God. Both the verb וְגַם־אֲנִׁי refers to נכה are related to a destruction performed by God. The verb שמם verb physically delivering a blow to someone and it is a part of the Exodus vocabulary regarding the plagues that fall upon Egypt by the hand of God (Ex. 3:20; 7:17; 8:12; occurrences are exclusively related with an action נכה Most of .(29 ,12:12 ;9:15 performed by God. Being able to decree the devastation and to enact it is a sign of his divine power (cf. Hos. 6:1; 14:5; Am. 3:15; 4:9; 6:11; 9:1; Jon. 4:7, 11; Hag. 2:17; is a sign (הֶחֱלֵיתִׁי) Zech. 9:4; 10:11; 12:4; 13:7; Mal. 3:24). The use of the perfect tense in for ‘certainty in the future’.274 The verse closes with the affirmation that the only reason for this destruction is sin (‘for your sins’).

The futility curses in Lv. 26: 26; Dt. 28:30-31, 39-40; Hos. 4:10 and Am. 5:11275 are reshaped and presented in verses 14-15 as punishments. According to Ben Zvi, these the city/the) אַתָה God) and) אֲנִׁי futility curses display ‘a strong contrast between sinner)’.276 They refer to an ordinary human action (eating, saving grain, planting, treading olives or grapes), which is then denied or its results rendered useless (hunger, sword, not having the chance to anoint with the oil or drink the wine). It is Allen’s

274 Keil and Delitzsch, 1871/2006, p. 338. 275 Leroy, [course support] 2011, pp. 111-112; Wolff, 1990, p. 197; Cf. full discussion in Allen, 1978, pp. 378-381. 276 Ben Zvi, 2000, p. 161

82 opinion that all these mean a disruption in the agricultural cycle, which in turn endanger the existence and well-being of the whole community.277

Verse 16 represents a summary of the elements present in the second poem. Omri and Ahab are two kings of the Northern Kingdom, father and son (1 Kgs. 16:29), who distinguished themselves as following the steps of their ancestor Jeroboam (I Kgs. 16:19 (Omri), 31 (Ahab)). While Omri has an episodic appearance in the history of Israel, as the founder of the city of Samaria (I Kgs. 16:24), Ahab is best known for his disputes with the prophet Elijah. Their worst sin is that of being worshippers of idols, but the context of Micah 6 does not seem to allude to that sin.

The main concern in Micah 6 is the deceit and wealth acquired through violence. Even if Omri is considered to have been a sinner ‘more evil than all who were before him’ (1Kgs. 16:25, RSV), there is no attestation of this fact in the MT. On the contrary, Ahab is well known for this because of the story of Nabot’s vineyard, when he unjustly expropriated his neighbour’s propriety by the hand of his wife Jezebel (I Kgs. 21).

The .בְמֹעֲצֹותָם and ,מַעֲשֵ ה ,חֻקֹות :The author uses three different nouns to suggest their sins first one is employed throughout the Pentateuch in reference to od’s statutes or ordinances referring to rules fulfilled by Abraham (cf. Gen. 26:5), keeping the Passover (Ex. 12:14; Num. 9:3) or other cultic laws (Lv. 7:36). When this term is associated with Omri’s name in Micah 6, its meaning is changed and may well refer to practices of has a very general significance and can indicate any kind of מַעֲשֵ ה ,idolatry. Instead work or deed. Using it along with the name of Ahab, Micah 6 is trying to refer in a , בְמֹעֲצֹותָם ,general manner to the wickedness described in verses 10-12. The last one appears only 6 times in MT (Prov. 1:31; 22:20; Ps. 5:11; Jer. 7:24; Hos. 11:6; Mic 6:16) which strangely ,יעצ is a participle form of מועצה as a generic term for sin. The term enough also occurs in Micah 6:5, referring to the plan devised by Balaam against Israel. These three words insinuate that this verse represents a summary of the sins condemned in chapter 6.

signals that these sins are already (וַתֵלְכּו) The past tense indicated by the wayyiqtol accomplished, agreeing with v. 10, where they are recorded using the present tense. The has been overlooked in the commentaries, being simply translated with חֶרְ פַת sense of

277 Allen, 1978, p. 380.

‘reproach’. Nevertheless, in the MT it is employed in all kind of contexts, starting with the shame of not having a child (Agar, Gen. 30:23); for marrying a non-Israelite husband (Gen. 34:14); of the nations who had overpowered them (Philistines I Sam. 17:26); of being violated (Amnon and Tamar I Sam. 13:12); for their religion (Neh. 5:9; Jer. 6:10); for being naked (Is. 47:2-3). In the Minor Prophets, this term is found 6 times, including Micah 6:16. While the passages Joel 2:17, 19 are not very clear about this prophet conveys, it signifies shame before Moab for the exile in חֶרְ פַה what kind of relates חֶרְ פַת ,Zephaniah 2:8 and 3:18, and shame for idolatry in Hosea 12:15. In Micah 6 to all the sins of the house of Omri and Ahab.

In conclusion, Micah 6 displays a coherent presentation of the arguments, which present an introduction verse and a summary verse in both poems. While the first poem is concentrated on od’s deed and favours towards his people and what it means to render him worship, the second one is focused on the people presenting their sins and their lawful punishment. In line with the usual prophetic opinion, Micah implies that God shows kindness and goodwill towards his people but (cf. 6:4-5), when provoked by sin, he is also the one who proceeds to administering punishment (cf. 6:13).

3. Text-critical Analysis of LXX Micah 6

The Letter of Aristeas is the only ancient testimony which gives an account of the appearance of the Septuagint. There have been roughly five theories regarding the origin of Septuagint. Three of them readily dismissed suppose a (1) Palestinian provenance (Moshe Gaster), (2) a liturgical provenance (H. St. John Thackeray), or (3) a translation done on the Hebrew text transliterated in Greek characters (Tychsen- Wutz). Paul Kahle issued in 1915 the (4) Targum theory contradicting the existence of a Vorlage or Ur-Septuagint text proposed by the (5) Lagardian theory.278 The Targum theory was contradicted by most scholars, such as Barthélemy, H. M. Orlinsky, Peter Walters, Frank M. Cross, and H. H. Rowley.279 Barthelemy was the main advocate for considering the Septuagint version of the Bible in its own right and not only as a translation of the Hebrew Bible.280

This chapter will engage in a textual critical analysis of Micah 6 LXX, trying to explain as many textual witnesses as possible. The analysis discusses most of the textual variants present in the critical apparatus of the LXX in Ziegler’s edition verse by verse and gives the critical textual version resulting from the analysis. The analysis often refers to assimilation and to conflate readings (or conflation). While the former designates a reading which is corrected by a certain witness in order to be similar to MT instead of ἀκούσατε (LXX)), the process (שִׁמְעּו :for example ἀκούετε [in 130-311] (MT) of conflation represents the additions to the original text which explain it fully or even comment on it (cf. v. 6: insertion of conjunction καί before ἀντιλήμψομαι; v. 7 ὐπέρ before ἀσεβείας).

Ziegler counts one neutral recension and four other main recensions in the Book of the Twelve Prophets. The neutral position, and, consequently, the most important, is held by four manuscripts. These are the ancient Codices Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus281 of

278 The Lagardian theory was produced in 1863 by Paul Anton de Lagarde. He asserted that that in order to reach the eclectic Urtext of the LXX one must follow an eclectic procedure. The critical text must be presented after an analysis of each translator’s style and the discernment either of a Hebrew original influencing the translator, or of a Greek distortion. Should one have to choose between two readings, priority must be given to the free translation, not to the literal one. Cf. Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 6. 279 Cf. the discussion of these theories in Jellicoe, 1968, pp. 59-73. 280 Harl, 'Les divergences entre la Septante et le texte massorétique', in La Bible grecque des Septante, p. 202. 281 The Book of Micah is missing entirely from this manuscript.

85 the fourth century, the later Codex Venetus ((V) eighth century) and the oldest extant codex of the Septuagint Codex Washington ((W) third century, fragmentary). The other four are the Hexaplaric, Alexandrian, and the Lucianic recensions, and the Catena group.

The Hexaplaric recension is the result of Origen’s strenuous work on the Hebrew Bible dated between 235 and 245 B.C. It contained six columns which offered a synoptic display of the Hebrew text, its transliteration into Greek, and the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint and Theodotion.282 He was adept to a literal translation of the Hebrew Bible. He marked the pluses and the minuses in the Septuagint in comparison with the MT, changed the word order and provided the transcription of the names in order to resemble the Hebrew original. His work has been very influential for the subsequent translations, some scribes correcting their own manuscripts after his. This in turn had a detrimental influence on LXX283 as it was no longer considered an independent text until recent times.

The Alexandrian recension, which sometimes is related to the Hesychian recension284 (despite the opposition of Ziegler’s school), contains a text influenced by the Hexaplaric tradition but free from its additions; it preserves the word order of the old LXX and offers a free translation of the original Hebrew text.285

The Lucianic texts belong to the Antiochian tradition, and in the Minor Prophets is very similar to the text commented by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyr.286 They show a ‘post-Hexaplaric reworking of the text’, which was performed in Antioch.287

The Catena group is a specific cluster of manuscripts which is similar to the Syro- Palestinian and Armenian translations, Theophylact of Acrida and Jerome.288 It was identified by M. Faulhaber who singled out the first catena in the minuscule 87-91-490,

282 Natalio Fern ndez Marcos and Wilfred . E. Watson, The Septuagint in Context (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 210. 283 Olivier Munnich, 'Le texte de la Septante', in La Bible grecque des Septante, ed. G. Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Cerf, 1988), pp. 165-166. 284 Cf. discussion in Fern ndez Marcos and Watson, 2000, pp. 242-243. 285 Fern ndez Marcos and Watson, 2000, p. 246. 286 Ziegler, 1967, pp. 70-71. 287 Fern ndez Marcos and Watson, 2000, p. 236. 288 Ziegler, 1967, pp. 90-96.

86 dated 450-550. The basis of this identification was three common errors found in Hos. 4:13, Nahum 1:3 and the misspelling of the prophet Haggai’s name.289 The second important catena is the 130-311-538 which sometimes oscillates between manuscripts 87-91-490 and the Alexandrian recension. Nevertheless, both the first and the second catena are closely related to the Hexaplaric recension.290

Verse 1

The Greek variant, ἀκούσατε δὴ λόγον κυρίου. ἅ ὁ κύριος εἶπεν, supported by the majority of the Alexandrian witnesses (A, 106, 26, M, 544, 710), combines the MT aorist IMP: ἀκούσατε δή) and B (κύριος εἶπεν), which is an harmonization of -שִׁמְעּו־נָא) the MT. LXX A puts καί before κρίθητι, a variant not supported by the majority of the texts (MT, Targum or LXX B).

In the Septuagint, there are some textual problems regarding the introductory words: ἀκούσατε δὴ λόγον κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν (version proposed by Rahlfs & Ziegler): a. Manuscript 130-311 (C) proposes ἀκούετε (present indicative or present IMP of ἀκούω) instead of ἀκούσατε (aorist IMP). This variant lacks witnesses in the tradition .שִׁמְעּו and is probably assimilating the MT b. The most important variant present in the Ziegler critical apparatus is: ἀκούσατε δὴ ἅ ὁ κύριος εἶπεν. his variant has wide support (M , ; Origen’s recension; group 233, group 407 from the Alexandrian recension, Basil, Complutensian Bible) and is lectio brevior. Nevertheless this textual version is not preferable to the one proposed by Rahlfs and Ziegler whose reading is supported by the Vatican and Washington Codices which are far more ancient witnesses (5th century).

The article οἱ is placed in front of βουνοί (in W and in Hexapla critical apparatus) to be closer to the original MT. Though accepted by Rahlfs in his Septuaginta, this rendering is discarded by Ziegler.291 His option in this case for the Greek variant is lectio difficilior and brevior.

289 Ziegler, 1967, p. 90. 290 Ziegler, 1967, p. 96. 291 Ziegler, 1967, p. 220.

Text v. 1: ἀκούσατε δὴ λόγον κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν ἀνάστηθι κρίθητι πρὸς τὰ ὄρη καὶ ἀκουσάτωσαν βουνοὶ φωνήν σου

Verse 2

Its subject in the LXX .שִׁמְעּו הָרִׁ ים This verse begins with a unique expression in the MT is translated either with βουνοί (A accepted by ahlfs) or λαοί (B and W, Ziegler, .is more probable as it is lectio difficilior (הָרִׁ ים/Swete292). The M reading (βουνοί

here are also omissions or additions in Ziegler’s critical apparatus, all to be discarded, as they have little textual support:

1. From the expression τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ κυρίου is omitted the genitive article singular τοῦ in the V.

2. he article αἱ from αἱ φάραγγες is lacking in minuscule 53 from C.

3. he article τά before θεμέλια is supported by L (62, 147 and 613).

Other variations involve the verbal form διελεγχθήσεται (from διελέγχω – to refute utterly, to prove false - indicative, future passive, 3 person, singular), all with little textual support:

1. διαλεχθήσεται (from δια-λέγω, to pick out one from another, to pick out – indicative future middle, 3 person singular) with support in L (62, 147), a part of C (130-131, 534), the Alexandrian text (26, 106), Basil, Theophylact and Chrysostom.

2. ελεγχθήσεται (ελέγχω, to disgrace, put to shame – indicative, future middle, 3 person, singular) supported by 538, minuscule from grup C, from the same family as 130, 534.

3. διαλεγχθήσεται (δια-ελέγχω indicative, future middle, 3 person, singular) supported by 68 (C)

292 Swete, 1905, p. 35.

Text v. 2: ἀκούσατε βουνοί τὴν κρίσιν τοῦ κυρίου καὶ αἱ φάραγγες θεμέλια τῆς γῆς ὅτι κρίσις τῷ κυρίῳ πρὸς τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ μετὰ τοῦ Ισραηλ διελεγχθήσεται

Verse 3

The Septuagint text adds a whole clause: ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε (conjunction coordinative ἢ, pronoun interrogative, verb – λυπέω to grieve, pain; and a personal pronoun accusative, singular 2 person). The addition is supported by all the major textual witness and it was signalled as an addition as early as Origen. It is missing from the EthiopicP version and in Theodore. Even if their version is lectio brevior and agrees with the MT, the addition is an integral part of the Septuagint.

L in 62, 147 and Theophylact report σέ (accusative pronoun 2 singular), instead of σοί (dative) after the verb παρενοχλέω. he verb παρενοχλέω usually requires a complement in the dative case, with few occurrences with the accusative.293 For that reason and because the change is poorly attested, it should not be taken into consideration.

Text v. 3: λαός μου τί ἐποίησά σοι ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε ἢ τί παρηνώχλησά σοι ἀποκρίθητί μοι

Verse 4

For the Septuagint text, L (62, 147) reads ἀνῆγον (ἀνάγω, to bring up, imperfect, active 1 singular), instead of the aorist (ἀνήγαγον). his version emphasizes the length of the action294 and it is more suitable after the rhetorical question in verse 3 τί παρηνώχλησά σοι (‘how have I wearied you?’). The lack of textual witnesses and the fact that the reading improves the text disqualifies this variant.

he use of the enclitic particle τε, supported by W, 734 (Alexandrian recension) and 239 (C group), is used to indicate a closer connection295 between Moses and Aaron than the one with Miriam. Being an interpretation of the text and with few textual witnesses, this variant is not acceptable.

293 Henry George Liddell et al., Greek‒English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), p. 1336. 294 Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1956), § 1908a, p. 427. 295 Smyth, 1956, pp. 666-667.

Text v. 4: διότι ἀνήγαγόν σε ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ ἐξ οἴκου δουλείας ἐλυτρωσάμην σε καὶ ἐξαπέστειλα πρὸ προσώπου σου τὸν Μωυσῆν καὶ Ααρων καὶ Μαριαμ

Verse 5

In verse 5, Ziegler presents several omissions:

1. Particle δή in L (majority of the witnesses), Codex Constantiensis (Latin, V is translated נָא century), translations: Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian. The Hebrew particle by the emphatic particle δή supported by B and Origen. The omission is not acceptable due to poor attestation, though it is lectio brevior.

2. Article τοῦ (genitive, masculine, singular) from τοῦ Βεωρ supported by the Alexandrian recension (764), C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, 68-96-239), Cyril, Theophylact and the Complutensian Bible. This version has various recensions to support it and it is lectio brevior, but all the witnesses are later than X century.

3. Article τοῦ (genitive, masculine, singular) from τοῦ κυρίου supported by , L (46, 86, 711), C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, 68-96-239, 534) and Theophylact. The Complutensian Bible does not support this omission.

Other textual changes are presented, but with little textual support:

1. ἐβουλεύσατο (indicative aorist middle 3 singular) to ἐβουλεύσαντο (indicative aorist middle 3 plural) supported by the Alexandrian recension (26, 106).

2. Instead of σχοίνων (noun genitive masculine plural common from ὁ σχοῖνος – rush, a place where rushes grow) the critical apparatus proposes variants to be discarded because of scant textual support:

a. σχοινίων genitive plural from τό σχοινίον (little rush), diminutive of σχοῖνος (W, , Alexandrian recension (711), C (139, 311, 538) and Alexandrian recension (233));

b. Jerome supposes σχίνων (genitive plural from σχῖνος, ἡ, the mastic- tree).

3. καί is added in the Syro-Hexapla recension. In this it loses its normal coordinative copulative function and becomes an adverbial καί (also, even, too Lat.: etiam). This use is attested in balanced disjunctive phrases or expressions in order to ‘mark the connection between antecedent and consequent’.296

4. Particle ἄν is added by one witness of the C (87*) and heophylact. he construction ὅπως with subjunctive can receive ἄν in purpose clauses.297 Being a correction this addition cannot be considered.

Text v. 5: λαός μου μνήσθητι δὴ τί ἐβουλεύσατο κατὰ σοῦ Βαλακ βασιλεὺς Μωαβ καὶ τί ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Βαλααμ υἱὸς τοῦ Βεωρ ἀπὸ τῶν σχοίνων ἕως τοῦ Γαλγαλ ὅπως γνωσθῇ ἡ δικαιοσύνη τοῦ κυρίου

Verse 6

In verse six, the Greek manuscripts contain additions as well as one homoioteleuton and one word with a different spelling:

1. The addition of ἐν τίνι before ἀντιλήμψομαι is to be discarded as it conflates the text repeating the interrogative pronoun τίς, τί with the preposition ἐν from the Moreover it has weak textual .בַמָה beginning of verse 6, correcting the ellipsis of support (W* and the Ethiopic recension).

2. The Ethiopic and the Arabic recensions, along with Cyprian, insert the copulative conjunction καί before ἀντιλήμψομαι, a version to be discarded because it represents a conflation of readings.

3. There is an homoioteleuton of θεοῦ μου ὑψίστου εἰ καταλήμψομαι (in M and 91*). The elision is triggered by the identity of case, number, and genre between τὸν κύριον (accusative singular masculine) and pronoun αὐτόν (αὐτός, αὐτή, αὐτό accusative singular masculine). Consequently, this reading is erroneous. Uncial 534 (C) deletes αὐτόν after καταλήμψομαι.

296 Smyth, 1956, § 2885 and 2888a, p. 653. 297 Smyth, 1956, § 2201, p. 495.

4. Between the clauses εἰ καταλήμψομαι αὐτὸν and ἐν ὁλοκαυτώμασιν ἐν μόσχοις ἐνιαυσίοις, in the uncials 9, 76 and 613 (Alexandrian tradition), and Las (IX century), there is the disjunctive conjunction ἤ.

5. L in 763, Cyril and Theophylact support ἐνιαυσιαῖοις (ἐνιαυσιαῖος, α, ον, adjective dative masculine plural) instead of B ἐνιαυσίοις (ἐνιαύσιος, α, ον, adjective dative masculine plural).

Text v. 6: ἐν τίνι καταλάβω τὸν κύριον ἀντιλήμψομαι θεοῦ μου ὑψίστου εἰ καταλήμψομαι αὐτὸν ἐν ὁλοκαυτώμασιν ἐν μόσχοις ἐνιαυσίοις

Verse 7

The Septuagint in manuscript 538 ([C] XII, Paris), and part of C (87-91-490, 130-311- 538), reads εἰ προσδέχεται (indicative present middle 3 singular) instead of εἰ The .הֲיִׁרְ צֶ ה προσδέξεται (indicative future middle 3 singular) as a translation of manuscript is not uniform in this verse because the following clause, introduced with the same conjunction εἰ, does not preserve the present tense, but uses the future δοσῶ.

Ziegler proposes the omission of the euphonic nun in χιλιάσιν and μυριάσιν, an option supported by papyrus Washington (W*), one of the oldest papyri, III CE. The main purpose of the nun was to avoid hiatus. In the papyri the euphonic nun was frequently missing298, as there was no specific rule for its use prior to the Byzantine period. Its use becomes uniform in Greek with the influence of the Koine dialect in III BCE.299 In time euphonic nun becomes one of the features of Hellenistic Greek in contrast with the Attic dialect. While its use is ‘universal before both consonants and vowels’ with verbal forms (see ἐστίν), with other morphological forms the omission is possible.300 Besides this ancient attestation, his textual choice is morphologically correct, as the addition of the nun is necessary when the next word normally starts with a vowel in order to avoid hiatus, which is not the case here. Also, the omission of the article ὁ before κύριος is lectio brevior.

298 Edwin Mayser and Hans Schmoll, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolem er eit, Vol. 1, I Teil (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1970), pp. 169-170. 299 Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 12. 300 H. St John Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, Vol. I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), pp. 134-135.

The Septuagint version expands and connects the two clauses in this verse with the coordinative conjunction ἤ. The Masoretic and Mur 88 texts followed by the Syro- Hexapla translation are lectio brevior, thus probably more authentic.

,either with χίμαρων (young goat) in codices B and V נַחֲ לֵי־שָ מֶן The Septuagint translates or with its variation χειμάρων (Washington papyrus and Origen’s recension), or even ἀρνῶν (in A). All are ancient and trustworthy witnesses, but all three variants are in fact scribal misspellings of χειμάρρων (noun genitive plural brook). The Targum preserves .נחלין דמשח the correct text

The Septuagint witnesses also contain several changes:

1. here is no pronoun 1 person genitive, singular (μου) after ἀσεβείας in the my transgression). Being so) פִׁ שְעִׁ י majority of the manuscripts where the MT contains well supported its authenticity cannot be denied, and also it is a lectio brevior and difficilior. Taylor asserts that it does not mean that the suffix has not been read, but it is ‘left to be supplied’ because μου is used three times in this verse.301 L cannot be considered because it corrects the error.

2. It conflates the translation with: the preposition ὐπέρ before ἀσεβείας (W, , Origen’s recension and L); the preposition περί before ἁμαρτίας ( ); and pro misericordia before ψυχῆς μου (Bohairic version). Although they have textual suport, the changes are not acceptable as they conflate the text.

Text v. 7: εἰ προσδέξεται κύριος ἐν χιλιάσι κριῶν ἢ ἐν μυριάσι χειμάρρων πιόνων εἰ δῶ πρωτότοκά μου ἀσεβείας καρπὸν κοιλίας μου ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτίας ψυχῆς μου

Verse 8

Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Swete accepted in their critical text the subordinate conjunction εἰ at the beginning of the verse 8. This addition met wide acceptance in the patristic period (Origen, Theodore, Theodoret, and Cyprian), which can be explaned with Niccacci’s comes usually after a negative כִׁי אִׁם assertion that in the Hebrew text the expression statement.302 Consequently, it can be argued that these authors were aware of this

301 Taylor, 1891, p. 137. 302 Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 136.

93 ellipsis in the Hebrew text and tried to render it as closely as possible in Greek through εἰ from the expression εἰ δὲ μή (if not). Thus, their translation faithfully reflects the MT.

Its attestation in the oldest manuscripts is difficult to retrieve because Micah is lacking entirely from Codex Sinaiticus. It is also absent from Codex Venetus (7th century CE), L, Ziegler’s C (87-91-490 and 130-311-538, 68-96-239, 534) and the Complutensian Bible.

Other variations:

1. The variants of ἀνηγγέλη are multiple:

a. With strong tradition: ἀπηγγέλη (Origen and Syro-Hexapla text, C, Theodore and Complutensian Bible (ἀπαγγέλω report, bring tidings, relate)303);

b. With little textual support: ἀπηγγέλει (62, 147; little textual support); ἀνηγγέλλει (86 (L) and 106 Alexandrian text); ἀναγγέλει (26, Alexandrian recension, 239 from C) ἀναγγέλη (53 , C) ἀπηγγείλα ( 8 719 (L), Peshitta); ἀνηγγείλα (763(L)) ἀπαγγέλω (Chrysostom and ulgate).

2. he addition of καί δικαιοσύνη after ποιεῖν κρίμα is present in the L recension (36-49, Las) and in one manuscript from C (239). Having little support and being a conflate variant, the addition is not acceptable.

3. Two critical editions have two variants in this verse. Rahlfs chooses ἀγαπᾶν ἔλεον with support in B, manuscript 86, L recension (22, 36, 48, 51, 231 and 719), and some patristic authors (Basil, Chrysostom and Theodore, Theodoret). He assumes that ἔλεον is the accusative case of τό ἔλεος, ους, which in fact is a misspelling. Ziegler chooses ἀγαπᾶν ἔλεος (accusative, singular, third declension of τό ἔλεος, ους,) with support in W, Eusebius. His variant seems more appropriate as the noun is neutral and the nominative, accusative and vocative cases are identical. It is true that there is a noun ὁ ἔλεος (masculine, II declension), which would have supported the accusative form proposed by Rahlfs, but its use was already discontinued by the time of the Septuagint.304

303 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 173. 304 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 532.

4. The variants ὀπίσω (majority of texts in L, Chrysostom, Cyrp, Theodere and Theodoret) and με κατά πρόσωπον (49, Alexandrian recension). Apart from the lack of textual support, the former is interpreting, rather than translating the Hebrew .and the latter is an expansion of the text ,עִׁם preposition

5. he omission of κυρίου from the reek expression κυρίου θεοῦ has little support (only 711, (L) and 87-91-490 (C)). The reason for this omission lies in the fact that it is missing in the MT.

Text v. 8: εἰ ἀνηγγέλη σοι ἄνθρωπε τί καλόν ἢ τί κύριος ἐκζητεῖ παρὰ σοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ τοῦ ποιεῖν κρίμα καὶ ἀγαπᾶν ἔλεος καὶ ἕτοιμον εἶναι τοῦ πορεύεσθαι μετὰ κυρίου θεοῦ σου

Verse 9

There are several minor changes proposed in the critical apparatus.

1. A, 106, 26, Cyril and Theophylact register the use of the accusative plural masculine article τούς before φοβουμένους. This minor change is unacceptable due to the fact that it is attested in only one recension.

2. Venetus Codex, 711 (L recension), and most of the manuscripts of C (87-91- 490, 130-131-538, 68-96) omit the prefix ἐπί in ἐπικληθήσεται. L-S definition of καλέω is to call, summon, invite, bring before the court (judicial sense), while ἐπικαλέω signifies to summon god to a sacrifice/ as witness to an oath; challenge, bring accusation against.305 The first variant seeks to correct the text in line with MT, thus this variant is not acceptable.

3. W proposes the imperative plural ἀκούετε, but this variant is a correction of the Septuagint to agree with the MT.

4. A in several witnesses (A, 106, 26, 49, 764, 613, and 764 (the last witness in the first hand manuscript is not certain)), and Cyril support the replacement of nominative masculine singular τίς with τί, the neuter singular.

5. 07, an Alexandrian manuscript supports the accusative singular φυλήν instead of the vocative φυλή – little support.

305 Liddell et al., 1996, pp. 866 and 635.

6. The omission of the second καί is supported by V, the majority of the L witnesses (22, 36, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763, 62, 147, 46, 86, 711), 49 (Alexandrian manuscript), one Latin witness (Las), and the following recensions: Syriac, Coptic, Etiopic, and Armenian. There are also some patristic references in Theodore, Theodoret from Cyr, and Theophylact. The reason for the adoption of this variant resides in the attempt to follow more closely the MT. Even though this variant has very strong support in the witnesses, this version is not acceptable because of its attempt to correct it in line with MT.

Text v. 9: φωνὴ κυρίου τῇ πόλει ἐπικληθήσεται καὶ σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἄκουε φυλή καὶ τίς κοσμήσει πόλιν

Verse 10

Due to its obscurity in the Hebrew text, this verse has often been amended starting from ancient times with the first witnesses (Septuagint, Targum, Vulgate, Syriac, etc). (1) The discussion will first evaluate the corrections made to the Septuagint in order to bring it in line with the MT recorded by Ziegler’s critical apparatus. (2) Secondly, it will engage with the differences between the critical texts presented by Ziegler and Rahlfs. The folios containing the Book of Micah are missing in Sinaiticus making the evaluation even more difficult. Most important in this case remain Codices Vaticanus and Washington.

1. Some witnesses omit words from, or further modify LXX, to make its text more in accord with MT. All of them are unacceptable readings of the Septuagint as they change the text in the direction of the MT.

a. Omission of the first καί in 239, a manuscript from C.

b. Omission of θησαυρίζων in 106 (Alexandrian tradition). Even if the text is lectio brevior in this case, the omission is not acceptable, because it lacks textual support and it represents the only verbal form in the whole verse. Its omission renders even more unintelligible the Greek translation (cf. below Rahlfs-Ziegler discussion).

c. Regarding this point one must pay close attention to the distinction between three similar morphological forms, part of the same family (ὁ νομος, ου with alpha

96 privativus): (1) the adjective ἄνομος, ον (without law), (2) the noun ὁ/ἡ ἄνομος, ου (transgressor), and (3) the noun ἡ ανομία, ας (iniquity, sin, lawlessness). Ziegler signals the replacement of (i) ἀνόμου with ἀνόμων and of (ii) ἀνόμους with ανομίας.

i. W supports ἀνόμου (from (1) ἄνομος, ον adjective genitive singular masculine) against ἀνόμων (from (2) ὁ/ἡ ἄνομος, ου, noun genitive plural) which has support in the Alexandrian (codices A and M along with 106, 26, 49, 198, 233, 710) and L traditions (36), in two translations (Ethiopic, Arabic), and in patristic testimonies such as Cyril and Basil.

ii. Ziegler shows that ἀνόμους (from (1) ἄνομος, ον – adjective accusative masculine plural, [treasures] without law) is replaced with ανομίας ((3) ανομία, ας – noun genitive singular feminine, [treasures] of iniquity) in the Alexandrian (codices A and M along with 106, 26, 544, 49, 764, 613, 198, 233, 710) and L traditions (36, 711), in translations (Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic), and in patristic testimonies like Cyril, Basil and Theophylact. Despite the wide support, the replacement is illegitimate because ἀνόμους is the version maintained by the oldest manuscript extant (W) and because the .from MT אֹצְרֹות רֶ שַע θησαυροὺς ανομίας conveys as closely as possible

d. The preposition μετά supported by all the codices (and Rahlfs) is replaced by Ziegler and Swete with μέτρον from the noun τό μέτρον, ου, measure (Ziegler:

מכילן scripsi=I wrote). This is the exact reading present in Micah 6 Targum (measures).

Regarding ἀδικία there are three proposals deriving from the noun ἡ ἀδικία, ας. (i) The nominative singular ἀδικία. his proposal is supported by Rahlfs but Ziegler supposes three subjects (fire, house and wickedness) connected through καί. The translation in this case would be: ‘are there yet fire and the house […] and wickedness?’ (ii) The genitive singular ἀδικίας supported by codices Washington and Venetus, majority of the L witnesses, one Alexandrian manuscript (49), C (87-91- 490), three translations (Ethiopic, Syriac and Arabic), and by Cyril (in part), Theodore, and Theophylact. This proposal would be the most probable choice because of its strong support in the textual witnesses. (iii) The accusative singular ἀδικίαν is present in L recension (62, 147), and Cyril (in part). This version lacks

validation from other witnesses. The analysis of the witnesses cannot provide a reasonable argument in favour of either variant.

2. The solution may come from analysis of the differences between Ziegler and Rahlfs. While the former chooses as his criterion the conformity with MT (μέτρον ὕβρεως ἀδικία), ahlfs prefers the reading which is better attested (μετὰ ὕβρεως ἀδικία). oing backwards, Ziegler hesitates to consider θησαυρίζων part of the text, putting it into square brackets, which might not be a bad idea as it would be lectio brevior. Both θησαυρίζων and μετὰ ὕβρεως have a common purpose in relation to their syntactical subjects: to give more details about them. Consequently, the value of the preposition μετά is not to be discarded, as it has very strong support. Its purpose is to introduce a genitive of accompanying circumstance306 meant to give a precise idea about the ἀδικία (injustice) through ὕβρεως (insulting). he preposition does not affect in any way the nominative case of ἀδικία which thus cannot be interpreted as a genitive, as suggested by the majority of witnesses.

Text v. 10: μὴ πῦρ καὶ οἶκος ἀνόμου θησαυρίζων θησαυροὺς ἀνόμους καὶ μετὰ ὕβρεως ἀδικία

Verse 11

(1) One Alexandrian witness (764) proposes the disjunctive conjunction ἤ instead of the interrogative pronoun εἰ. (2) he addition of the copulative conjunction καί has solid support starting with W, followed by the Alexandrian recensions (A and M codices, 106, 26, 198, 233, 710, 764), by the C (534) and Lucianic recension (46, 86). Both variants are trying to connect syntactically the two rhetorical questions in verses 10 and 11. The first attempt seems an elegant solution to the problem but it has little support in the witnesses. The second one has plenty of witnesses in the tradition but has no equivalent in MT.

(3) The term ἄνομος is replaced with ἄδικος in most of the L manuscripts and some of

Alexandrian testimonies (407, 613) and Theodoret, which do not amount to a critical mass of manuscripts to require its acceptance.

306 Smyth, 1956, §1691, 1, p. 381.

( ) he form μαρσίππῳ (μάρσιππος, ου noun dative masculine singular bag, sack) is replaced:307

- in C (130-311-538, 68-96-239) and one Alexandria witness (198) with μαρισππίῳ (μαρσίππιος, ου noun dative neutral singular), attested in Hippocrates, Cairo Papyri, and the Flinders Petrie Papyri 3;

- in some works of Cyril and Basil with the variation μαρισπίῳ (μαρσίπιος, ον noun dative singular) – varia lectio in later manuscripts.

ext v. 11: εἰ δικαιωθήσεται ἐν ζυγῷ ἄνομος καὶ ἐν μαρσίππῳ στάθμια δόλου

Verse 12

Ziegler’s critical apparatus includes several textual problems. For the sake of clarity, the discussion will focus on verbal forms, on omissions/additions and then on other morphological forms (ἀσεβείας, αὐτὴν, and ψευδῆ). a. The disputed verbal forms amount to five:

i. There are two different textual options supported by Rahlfs and Swete, and one by Ziegler. Rahlfs and Swete consider ἔπλησαν (πίμπλημι, indicative aorist active 3 plural to fill)308 as the most suitable, while the latter supports ἐvέπλησαν (ἐμπίμπλημι indicative aorist active 3 plural to fill up).309 ἔπλησαν has wide support in the recensions starting with the Washington, Vatican, and Venetus codices, the Hexaplaric recension in the corrected form, L (22, 62, 711), C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, 68, 239), and Cyril along with one Alexandrian testimony (198). ἐvέπλησαν is supported by the Alexandrian and M Codices, and the Complutensis Bible.

ii. ἔπλησε (πίμπλημι, aorist 3 singular) is supported only by 613 (Alexandrian witness)

iii. Instead of κατοικοῦντες (κατοικέω participle present active nominative masculine plural live, reside), V, the great majority of both L (22, 36, 48, 51, 231, 719,

307 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 1124. 308 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 1405. 309 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 545. As Smyth explains it, in the verbal form ἐvέπλησαν the preposition ἐv reappears in its proper form, which in the present tense is modified to ἐμ (cf. Smyth, 1956, p. 545).

763, 62, 147, 46, the original reading of 86, 711) and C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, 68, 96, 534) have ἐνοικοῦντες (ἐν-οικέω participle present active nominative masculine plural to dwell in a place, inhabit). All critical editions consulted (Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler) endorse κατοικοῦντες.

iv. V, the Hexaplaric recension in the corrected form, and some manuscripts from C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, 96, 534), the Complutensian Bible, and Theophylact support ἐλάλησαν (λαλέω indicative aorist active 3 plural).

v. B is the only manuscript supporting ὑψώθητι (ὑψόω imperative aorist passive 2 singular) against ὑψώθη (indicative aorist passive 3 singular). b. Additions and omissions:

- several unacceptable additions:

1. the insertion of καί cannot be accepted as it is supported only by three witnesses in C (87-91-490) and it is a conflated reading.

2. τὸν πλοῦτον is replaced with domus in texts of Latin provenance (Jerome and Las, IX century) and in Theophylactlem.

- Omissions:

1. First αὐτῶν in one L manuscript (711), one C manuscript (538), and in Jerome. c. The other disputed morphological forms (regarding number ἀσεβείας, αὐτὴν and ψευδῆ):

- ἀσεβείας (ἡ ἀσέβεια, ας noun genitive feminine singular impiety, godlessness), Smyth is very helpful in explaining the rapport between the commanding verb πίμπλημι and the genitive ἀσεβείας: ‘the genitive is used with verbs signifying to fill, to be full of. he thing filled is put in the accusative’.310 Consequently, ἐξ ὧν τὸν πλοῦτον αὐτῶν ἀσεβείας ἔπλησαν is to be translated ‘from which they filled their richness with

310 Smyth, 1956, p. 324.

100

and refers not to the city (as was established in the MT ,אֲשֶ ר impiety’. ἐξ ὧν renders earlier) but to ἐν ζυγῷ and ἐν μαρσίππῳ.

There are two proposed modifications:

1. Manuscript 26 (Alexandrian recension) supports ἀσεβεῖς. his form comes from the adjective ἀσεβής, ές (ungodly, impious)311 but is used as a noun (ὁ ἀσεβής, εος312) because as an adjective it would have no other noun to qualify. ἀσεβεῖς can be either nominative plural or accusative plural. The former is the form employed here. The reason for the change is to provide a smoother translation by offering a syntactical subject for ἔπλησαν (the translation in this case would be: ‘[…] in which impieties fill their richness’). he reading lacks support in the manuscript, but improves the translation.

2. Manuscripts 46-86txt (L) present ἀδικίας (noun genitive feminine singular/ accusative feminine plural injustice). This proposal appears in only one recension. Also the change would impact on the sense of the phrase, as L-S asserts that ἀδικία is the opposite of ἡ ἀσέβεια, ας referring probably to a semantic opposition between injustice, which implies a broken law, and impiousness implying the disregard for a god.313

- αὐτὴν (αὐτός, αὐτή, αὐτό pronoun accusative feminine singular), there are five variations involving some modifications in case, number, gender, and an omission. The verb κατοικέω (settle in, colonize) has a transitive value which seems to be its classical use as shown by L-S ‘κατοικέω πόλιν’ (Herodotus) to dwell in, inhabit.314 κατοικέω has also an intransitive value (to dwell, to settle)315 which will be exemplified below. Given the participial use which refers to the inhabitants or the residents of the city, its value tends to switch from the action of settling the city (an internal accusative316 as it stands in the present form in the critical text (αὐτὴν)) as a locative value. Being a lost syntactical case in Greek, the functions of the locative were redistributed to the dative

311 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 255. 312 G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 243. 313 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 255. 314 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 928. 315 Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek‒English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1889/1974), p. 341. 316 Cf. Smyth, 1956, p. 354.

101 case.317 Consequently, one can see the logical modification operated by (1) some of L manuscripts (αὐτῇ dative feminine singular in 62 and 147) and (2) by Theodoret (ἐν αὐτῷ preposition ἐν318 with dative masculine singular). (3) C (490) overrides any syntactical discussion by omitting αὐτὴν but this is not a viable solution as this αὐτὴν has a specific purpose: to make clear whose inhabitants are referred to (ἡ πόλις, εως city in v. 9). ( ) Basil connects it through the change αὐτήν→αὐτόν (accusative masculine singular) with τὸν πλοῦτον (‘those who are settled in it [in richness]’). (5) The L (36) and A recensions ( 9) suppose αὐτῶν (genitive plural), which plays on the intransitive quality of κατοικέω. αὐτῶν is a partitive genitive319 to be translated as ‘those who settled among them’. All of the five proposals are discarded because they lack support in the manuscripts, and interpret the text.

- ψευδῆ (ψευδής, ές adjective accusative neuter plural) there are three variants. (1) V, Hexapla recensions (Origen and Syro-hexapla), 711 (Alexandrian recension), the majority of the C, Las, Theophylact and Jerome support ἄδικα (ἄδικος, ον adjective accusative neuter plural). (2) A variation from the same semantic family is ἀδικίαν (ἡ ἀδικία noun accusative feminine singular) supported by two late manuscripts from C (68 and 239) and the Armenian recension. (3) The last variant in mendacio verba (they were speaking words in falsehood) (Akhmimic translation) has no other textual support. Only the first variant has strong textual support in the witnesses, but it is rejected because it tries to make the text more readable and has no support whatsoever in the MT.

The only version which remains faithful to the MT text is the Akhmimic translation (divites eius impleverunt inquitatem), but there is no other validation for this in the LXX manuscripts.

Text v. 12: ἐξ ὧν τὸν πλοῦτον αὐτῶν ἀσεβείας ἔπλησαν καὶ οἱ κατοικοῦντες αὐτὴν ἐλάλουν ψευδῆ καὶ ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτῶν ὑψώθη ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν

317 Smyth, 1956, p. 47. The locative is discussed thoroughly in §215, §229, §280, §341-342, §1279, §1450, §1530-1543. 318 Smyth, 1956, pp. 352-353: ‘With names of countries and places, ἐν is more common than the locative dative, and, with the above exceptions, the place where is expressed in Attic prose with ἐν’. 319 Smyth, 1956, pp. 316-317 [§1306-7], 320 [§1339].

102

Verse 13

Hexapla καίγε ἐγώ ἐβασάνισα ἐπί σε ἀφανισμῷ διά τάς ἁμαρτίας σου

LXX καὶ ἐγὼ ἄρξομαι τοῦ πατάξαι σε ἀφανιῶ σε ἐπὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις σου

This verse is very different in the Hexapla recension (Origen and Syro-hexapla), in 711 (L), some manuscripts in C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, 96, 534) and in Jeromelem. This variant manages to transmit the same message as MT, but it deviates from the LXX in trying to picture a clearer idea about the action (βασανίζω to torture, cf. 2Mac. 8:27) which is rendered with two verbs (ἄρχομαι to begin and πατάσσω to strike) in the LXX. These two verbs in turn are converted into one (βασανίζω), while the last verb (ἀφανιῶ) suffers a change from verb into a noun (ἀφανιῷ dative masculine singular ἀφανισμός, οῦ destruction). The result for the Hexapla recension is a single statement instead of the asyndeton in LXX.

he personal pronoun σέ (accusative 2 singular) remains the external object320 for the verb (Hexapla βασανίζω/LXX πατάσσω), but the Hexapla recension enhances the hostile position with the use of the preposition ἐπί with accusative (‘I have tortured [against] you’).321 One can say that ἐπί is even pleonastic. The cause of the punishment is presented with a normal διά with accusative (‘because/owing to your sins’).322 Nevertheless, the critical text is more appropriate as it preserves the rhetorical quality of which underlines it. ἐπί ( הֶחֱלֵיתִׁי הַכֹותֶָך) the asyndeton323 and the Hebraic construction with the dative ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις relates the motive324 of the punishment, while the variant found in the Hexapla (διά τάς ἁμαρτίας) has no influence on the general sense of the phrase.

V, Las, the Armenian translation and Jerome support ἀφανισμῷ (dative masculine singular ἀφανισμός, οῦ destruction) instead of the ἀφανιῶ (ἀφανίζω indicative future active 1 singular). All of these witnesses are later manuscripts.

320 Smyth, 1956, p. 354, §1554. 321 Smyth, 1956, p. 379; cf. Liddell et al., 1996, p. 623. 322 Smyth, 1956, p. 375. 323 Smyth, 1956, p. 484, §2165a. 324 Smyth, 1956, pp. 348 and 379.

103

The asyndeton has been cancelled with the addition of καί in most of the Alexandrian manuscripts (Alexandrian and M codices, 106, 26, 544, 49, 764, 613, 198, 233, 710, 407), in some manuscripts from C (534) and L (36, 46, 86), in the Ethiopic and Arabic translations, in Cyril, Basil, and Theophylact. This modification seems to have only really significant support in the Alexandrian recension, so it is discarded.

Because verses 12-13 are referring to the same object, L (22, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763 and heodore) tries to make the plural forms in v. 12 (αὐτῶν [three times], ἔπλησαν, κατοικοῦντες, ἐλάλουν) agree with the personal pronouns in v. 13 (1) σέ (accusative 2 singular) and (2) σοῦ (genitive 2 singular) by replacing them either with (1) ὑμᾶς (accusative 2 plural) or eos (is, ea, id demonstrative pronoun accusative masculine plural only in Akhmimic translation) and, respectively, (2) ὑμῶν (genitive 2 plural) or αὐτῶν (only in Akhmimic translation). Being an attempt to correct the LXX, these variants are discarded. Verse 14 preserves the 2 singular forms.

ext v. 13: καὶ ἐγὼ ἄρξομαι τοῦ πατάξαι σε ἀφανιῶ σε ἐπὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις σου

Verse 14

Only three witnesses propose a modification of the first σύ: its replacement with καί (46 – L) and its deletion (first hand in minuscule 86 – L and the Ethiopic translation). Though very old, the attestation of the form ἐπλησθῇς (πίπλημι subjunctive aorist passive 2 singular) for ἐμπλησθῇς (ἐμπίπλημι subjunctive aorist passive 2 singular) in W is too weak to be considered. Based on hayer’s observations,325 one can argue that πίπλημι refers to the idea of being full, to be completed, while ἐμπίπλημι relates to being satiated, satisfied. In the end their sense overlaps because they both share the same root.

The Hexapla recension, L (V, marginal notes in 36, 86, minuscule 711), C (87-91-490, 130-311-538, Armenian translation, Jerome), and Alexandrian recension (233, 710, Bohairic translation, Cyril, 7 8) support instead of (1) σκοτάσει ἐν σοὶ καὶ ἐκνεύσει (LXX) the variant (2) ἐξώσω326 σε ἐν σοὶ καὶ καταλήψῃ327 (I will displace you because

325 Thayer, 1889/1974, pp. 208 and 509. 326 ἐξ-ωθέω future indicative 1 singular to expel, drive out, displace, cf. Samuel Bagster, The Analytical Greek Lexicon (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, 1852), p. 226; Liddell et al., 1996, p. 500. 327 καταλαμβάνω, indicative future middle 2 singular, cf. Liddell et al., 1996, p. 897.

104 of you328 and you will lay hold). he variations of this translation reported in Ziegler’s critical apparatus have little support in the manuscripts, so they will not be discussed.

As . וְיֶשְחֲָךבְקִׁרְ בֶָך וְתַסֵג Both variants depart from the same difficult Masoretic expression we have seen in the textual criticism analysis performed on the Hebrew version, (1) the ,(be, grow dark) חָשְַך comes from the root וְיֶשְחֲָך Septuagint believes that the form Hifil: ‘to) סור is interpreted with ἐκνεύσει as equivalent of the Hebrew root329 וְתַסֵג while cause [turn aside] depart, common word for remove, take away […] rare uses are: put נדח aside.’330). The most frequent Hebrew equivalent in the variant (2) for ἐξ-ωθέω is (18 times out of 30 occurrences of ἐξ-ωθέω in LXX: Dt. 13:6; 2Sam. 14:13-14; 15:14; 23:6; 2Kgs. 17:21; Joel 2:20; Jer. 8:3; 16:15; 23:2-3, 8; 24:9; 25:16; 26:28; Ps. 5:11). ,to reach) נשג The other verb καταλήψῃ understands the Vorlage as having a form of overtake cf. Hos. 2:9; 10:9; Zech. 1:6; Is. 35:10; 51:11; 59:9). Whatever the causes of different Vorlage, or a) ר to ג the variation in the (1) Septuagint translation from copyist’s mistake), this variant is better attested.

This verse also has another 6 minor variations with little support in the witnesses:

1. Instead of σκοτάσει (σκοτάζω indicative future active 2 singular to become dark, to remain in darkness), the L (22, 36, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763, 62, 147, Theodore) and Alexandrian (49, 764, 613) recensions, and Las support συσκοτάσει (συσκοτάζω same morphological value to grow quite dark).

2. The form ἐκνεύσει ((ἐκνεύω indicative future active 3 singular to turn aside, withdraw) it has very good support: B, majority Alexandrian recensions (W and 407, Akhmimic translation, Basil)) is replaced with ἐκνεύσεις (ἐκνεύω indicative future active 2 singular) in L (together with the great majority of the Patristic tradition). Evidently, L tries to have this verb agree in person with the following διασωθῇς (2 singular), as they are antonyms. Regarding the comma between ἐκνεύσει and καί in Ziegler’s critical text, there is no reason for its use here because the conjunction καί is used to connect two sentences. The comma is not present in other similar cases (v. 14: σὺ φάγεσαι καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐμπλησθῇς; v. 15: σὺ σπερεῖς καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀμήσῃς σὺ πιέσεις ἐλαίαν καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀλείψῃ).

328 Smyth, 1956, p. 377, §1687c. 329 Thayer, 1889/1974, p. 416. 330 BDB, p. 694.

105

3. σύ precedes the second οὐ μή in Codices Vaticanus and Venetus, in one Alexandrian (764) and one L minuscule (711). Despite the antiquity of B, this addition is justifiable neither on the basis of parallelism (in that case, it should have been placed before ἐκνεύσει), nor to provide precision in regard to the person involved, since the verb already signals the second person singular (διασωθῇς).

4. ἐάν supported by W is replaced with ἄν in the majority of the Alexandrian witnesses (Codices A and M, 106, 26, 544, 49, 764, 613, 198, 233, 534, Cyril), L (87- 91-490, Theodore, Theophylact, Basil). Both variants can be qualified as a type of conditional clause called by Smyth ‘more vivid future conditions’. While in other types of conditional clauses the presence of one particle or another can influence its sense, for this specific case (protasis: subjunctive/apodosis future indicative) the particle can be ἐάν, ἄν or ἤν.331 Given the antiquity of W, the first variant is more plausible.

5. Minuscule 48 and 86 (L), and Cyril support σωθῶσιν (σῴζω subjunctive aorist passive 3 plural) against διασωθῶσιν (διασῴζω). he only instances where the root escape, bring to safety) are Ps. 55(56):8, Mic. 6:14 and) פלט σῴζω translates the Hebrew Job 21:10.

6. The same minuscule and Theodoret use the preposition ἐν with dative ῥομφαίᾳ instead of the preposition εἰς with the accusative ῥομφαίαν. Both prepositions suppose a locative value. The substitutions may be explained by the fact that the dative case usually fulfils this duty.332

ext v. 1 : σὺ φάγεσαι καὶ οὐ μὴ ἐμπλησθῇς καὶ σκοτάσει ἐν σοὶ καὶ ἐκνεύσει καὶ οὐ μὴ διασωθῇς καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν διασωθῶσιν εἰς ῥομφαίαν παραδοθήσονται

Verse 15

This verse counts several minor variations, most of them with little material support in the recensions. The same phenomenon of deletion of asyndeton (cf. verses 13 and 14) by inserting a copulative καί is verified in one L minuscule (51).

331 Smyth, 1956, p. 523. 332 Smyth, 1956, p. 351.

106

Verb tenses vary substantially which is in fact a reflection of the difficulty the Greek reader experiences when attempting to translate faithfully the verbal forms from Hebrew. Ziegler counts several variations:

1. Origen and Basil report σπείρεις (σπείρω indicative present active 2 singular) instead of σπερεῖς (future).

2. ἀμήσῃς (ἀμάω subjunctive aorist active 2 singular) is replaced with ἀμήσεις (indicative future active 2 singular) in the Alexandrian recension (W), Origen, L recension (22, 36, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763, 62, 147), in the Catena recension (87-91-490), and others.

3. σὺ πιέσεις (you will press) has several variations:

a. Origen renders more precise the verb employing ἐκπιέζω (to squeeze);

b. C in minuscule 130 and 76 supports πιέσῃς (subjunctive present active 2 singular);

c. Another Catena minuscule (239) replaces it with another verb: σὺ ἐργάσει (ἐργάζομαι indicative future active 2 singular).

4. ἀλείψῃ (subjunctive aorist middle 2 singular) is discarded in one C minuscule (130) in favour of λήψῃ (λαμβάνω indicative future middle 2 singular). The sense of λαμβάνω employed here is to receive as produce, profit.333

5. Minuscule 86 (marginalia, Catena recension) replaces πίητε (subjunctive aorist active 2 plural) with πίεις (future indicative active 2 singular). πίητε has a plethora of witnesses starting with B, followed by the Alexandrian recension (Codices A and M, 106, 26, 544, 198, 233, 764, Bohairic and Arabic, Cyril and Basil), and the Catena recension (534).

6. Before οἶνον two recensions (L [22, 36, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763] and C [87-91- 490]) present ποιήσεις (ποιέω future indicative active 2 singular to do, make), while Bohairic translation (Alexandrian recension) has conculcabitis (conculcare future indicative active 2 plural to crush cf. Is. 16:10).

333 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 1027 cf. ad locum.

107

Each of the three pairs of sentences in v. 15 contains an affirmation (A) and a negation (B). In the Greek version the critical text contains three verbs (two expressed and one omitted) in the future indicative connected with another three verbs in subjunctive mode negated with οὐ μή. he negation ‘οὐ μή, and the compounds of each, are used in emphatic negative predictions and prohibitions.’334 Because the force of the negation comes from the way the negation οὐ μή is constructed and not from the verbal forms themselves, Smyth’s definition applies to all versions regardless of the verbal form they employ (aorist subjunctive or future indicative). Two minuscules (62, 147) from L do not recognize this value of οὐ μή (the first in v. 15) and change it to οὐκ, simple negation.

Some correction is apparent for (1) ἐλαίαν (ἡ ἐλαία accusative singular feminine olive tree) with ἐλαίον (ἐλαίον accusative singular neuter olive (Origen)) and (2) οἶνον (ὁ οἶνος accusative masculine singular wine) with σταφυλήν (ἡ σταφυλή accusative bunch of grapes (Alexandrian recension: 49, Las, Jerome)) and ἄμπελον (ἡ ἄμπελος accusative vine (C: 239)).

he last part of verse 15 καὶ ἀφανισθήσεται νόμιμα λαοῦ μου has no equivalent in M . This modification is supported by all recensions (Alexandrian: V, Las; L: 22, 48, 231, 719, 763, the Armenian translation, Theodore, Theodoret; C: 87-91-490, 130, 311, 68- 96-239, Jerome; and Origen: Syrohexapla translation).

ext v. 15: σὺ σπερεῖς καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀμήσῃς σὺ πιέσεις ἐλαίαν καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀλείψῃ ἔλαιον καὶ οἶνον καὶ οὐ μὴ πίητε καὶ ἀφανισθήσεται νόμιμα λαοῦ μου

Verse 16

The critical text proposed by Ziegler does not include the translation of the first clause :due to its weak support with the recensions (Alexandrian וְיִׁשְתַמֵרחֻקֹות עָמְרִׁ י of verse 16 W, 786 and Ethiopic translation; few minuscules in L (51c, 46, 86, 711)). Besides the actual MT text, there is no real consensus among recensions to support it. Consequently,

334 Smyth, 1956, p. 629 [§2754-2758]; for subjunctive: pp. 404-405; also with future tense: p. 429 [§1919].

108

Ziegler (as Complutensis Bible) treats this sentence as an addition to the critical text and not as a part of it, as do Rahlfs and Swete.335

This verse has its share of textual problems, but none of them is worth taking into consideration, as all have little support in the witnesses. Their list follows below with some commentary where necessary.

1. he omission of the article τά is supported only in some L witnesses (22, 36, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763 and Theodore).

2. One L witness (86*) supports ὅρια (τό ὅριον nominative/accusative neuter boundary limit) instead of ἔργα (τό ἔργον accusative neuter plural deed, action).

3. Two witnesses (62 and Bohairic translation) spell αχαβ in place of Αχααβ. Las (Alexandrian recension) supposes huius achab, reading the proper noun with article τοῦ (genitive singular).

4. The variant ἐπορεύθης (indicative aorist passive 2 singular) instead of the ἐπορεύθητε (2 plural) is supported by one L minuscule (51c) and three minor Alexandrian witnesses (Akhmimic and Ethiopic translations, and Jerome). This is a correction that seeks to make the verb agree with pronouns (σύ) and verbal forms (σπερεῖς, ἀμήσῃς, πιέσεις, ἀλείψῃ, πίητε) in 2 singular from verse 15. Due to the lack of witnesses, and because it is a correction of the text, the variant is discarded.

5. here are three modifications that are connected with Αχααβ:

a. βουλαῖς (ἡ βουλή, ῆς dative feminine plural plan, decision) is replaced in B, Las and the Akhmimic translation (both Alexandrian recension) with ὁδοῖς (ὁ ὁδός dative masculine plural);

b. he possessive pronoun αὐτῶν (αὐτός, αὐτή, αὐτό genitive plural) is replaced with αὐτοῦ (genitive singular). his αὐτοῦ refers to Αχααβ. he modification reflects an agreement in number that the Armenian translation and two corrected L minuscules (22, 51) also observe. These witnesses are among those which do not include the sentence καὶ ἐφύλαξας τὰ δικαιώματα Ζαμβρι. he Armenian translation is constant regarding these two elements (possessive pronoun and

335 Ziegler, 1967, p. 223; Swete, 1905, p. 36; Rahlfs and Hanhart, 2006, p. 517.

109

Αχααβ), while 22, 51 corrected it later. he plural form αὐτῶν implies a reference to Ζαμβρι and Αχααβ. c. Two witnesses (Cyrilp of Alexandria and Basil) prefer παραδώσει (παραδίδωμι indicative future active singular) to παραδῶ (subjunctive aorist active 1 singular). heir translation would be ‘so he will give you to destruction’.

6. he same form παραδῶ is translated by the majority of the Alexandrian witnesses with παραδώσω (future indicative 1 singular ‘I will give you’). o render the the Greek translation should have employed the subordinate conjunction ,( לְמַעַןתִׁתִׁי) MT ὥστε with future (for something that ‘occurred as a fact’) or infinitive (for intention, etc.) in order to reproduce its consecutive sense.336 Instead the Septuagint uses the causal subordinate conjunction ὅπως with the subjunctive, while the Alexandrian recension employs the future tense. According to Smyth, there is no difference in sense between the subjunctive and future tense in this case.337

7. There are also six other minor variations. a. Personal pronoun σέ (accusative 2 singular Lat. te) replaced with the plural (vos) in Las, and Armenian translation. b. Some witnesses have a different variant for κατοικοῦντας (κατοικέω reside, settle): ἐνοικοῦντας from ἐνοικέω to dwell in a place (Origen (Hexapla) and C (87-91- 490, 68, 239, 613)), and συνοικοῦντας from συνοικέω to dwell together (130). c. egarding the possessive pronoun αὐτήν (accusative feminine), minuscule 68 has dative αὐτῇ (locative sense, influenced by ἐνοικέω to dwell in a place); minuscule 6 changes it to masculine αὐτóν, a form also present in the Ethiopic and Armenian translations (te). d. C (46, 86, 711) uses preposition ἐν+dative instead of εἰς+accusative triggering a change in case from συρισμόν (ὁ συρισμός accusative) to συριγμῷ (ὁ συριγμός dative a whistling, hissing). There is no difference between ὁ συρισμός and ὁ

336 Cf. Smyth, 1956, p. 507 [§2257-2258]. 337 Smyth, 1956, p. 496 [§2203].

110

συριγμός in terms of sense (<συρίζω to make a hissing sound <ἡ σῦριγξ, ιγγος, pipe).338 e. L (all its witnesses, heodore, exception 36) inserts λαοῦ μου (λαός genitive singular with personal pronoun 1 singular genitive) instead of λαῶν (genitive plural no personal pronoun) in order to make the Greek variant agree with MT .(עַמִׁי) f. λήμψεσθε (λαμβάνω indicative future middle 2 plural) is replaced with λήμψονται (λαμβάνω indicative future middle 3 plural) in L recension (22, 48, 51, 231, 719, 763, 62, 147, Theodore) and in the Ethiopic and Arab translations.

ext v. 16: καὶ ἐφύλαξας τὰ δικαιώματα Ζαμβρι καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔργα οἴκου Αχααβ καὶ ἐπορεύθητε ἐν ταῖς βουλαῖς αὐτῶν ὅπως παραδῶ σε εἰς ἀφανισμὸν καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας αὐτὴν εἰς συρισμόν καὶ ὀνείδη λαῶν λήμψεσθε

3.1. Conclusion The analysis discerned divergences between MT and LXX in terms of textual differences and confirmed the general tendencies of the non-neutral recensions. The main differences regarded not only the obscure texts which needed clarification but also the insertion of little corrections so that the syntactical or morphological problems receive an appropriate reading in Greek.

The main differences between the two texts convey:

1. Reinforcement. (1) LXX repeats in v. 1 in direct speech the person who represents the source of the prophetic message: ἀκούσατε δὴ λόγον κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν. (2) In verse 15, LXX expands the curses with καὶ ἀφανισθήσεται νόμιμα λαοῦ μου ‘and the lawful things of my people will be destroyed’. The addition concludes the curses in verses 14-15. 2. Clarification of general/obscure words or phrases: a. In v. 3 the addition of ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε limits the general sense of the initial .עַמִׁי מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי לְָך question with ὁ σχοῖνος, rush, rush bed or reed or ‘land שִׁטִׁים b. The Septuagint translates measure used especially in Egypt’, which would fit with where the LXX was

338 Liddell et al., 1996, pp. 1731-1732.

111

produced. This term comes from σχοινίς, ιδος which means rope and is related to the noun σχοινᾶς rope-maker and the adjective σχοινινός made of rushes.339 These elements suggest that σχοῖνος could be used in the making of ropes. the Septuagint does not seem to recognize it as the name ,שִׁטִׁים Regarding the sense of if it is not acknowledged as such by MT. The term occurs שִׁטִׁים of the biblical place five times in the Hebrew version but only in three passages (camp location: Num. 33:49; Jos. 2:1; 3:1), does it present as a name of a specific place because this can be determined from the context. In the other two instances (Joel 3:18 and Micah 6:5), the context is not explicit enough and LXX returns to ὁ σχοῖνος. In Micah 6:5 MT, the sense of the phrase was easy to suppose because it talks about two places near the river of Jordan and it is fair to assume that implied a crossing from one place to another. The sense proposed by J. Aitken, who translates ὁ σχοῖνος in Jer. 18:15 with the word way,340 does not fit the context of Mic. 6:5. Nevertheless, in his quest for the sense of ὁ σχοῖνος, he mentions . Muraoka’s statement that one should read the Septuagint looking for ‘what sense a reader […] ignorant of Hebrew or Aramaic might have made of the translation’341 (p. 438). Muraoka himself reads ὁ σχοῖνος as rush342 but, if his previous suggestion is to be accepted, it should be read in the generic sense of bush. In this case, the message of the LXX is ‘My people […] [remember what have I done]343 from the rush/bush to Gilgal’ which could refer to Exodus 3:4 where God communicates his first commands to Moses from a bush, ἐκ τοῦ βάτου (3:2-4). The sense of ὁ βάτος, ου is bramble-bush (OED: A rough prickly shrub344), and it also refers to the Jewish measure of liquids.345 Both βάτος and σχοῖνος refer to a type of bush and measure. the Vulgate shows that its translation was not limited to ,שִׁטִׁים Returning to the sense of rush or measure, because in Joel 4:18 it is translated with spinarum. This demonstrates that the difference in meaning between ὁ σχοῖνος and ὁ βάτος is not that clear, as the first can have the same property of having thorns. Consequently, the translation of ὁ σχοῖνος can be flexible and should not be confined to rush or

339 Liddell et al., 1996, p. 1746-1747. 340 James K. Aitken, 'Σχοῖνος in the Septuagint', Vetus Testamentum 50, No. 4 (2000), pp. 433-444. 341 Takamitsu Muraoka, A Greek‒English Lexicon of the Septuagint Twelve Prophets (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), p. VIII. 342 Muraoka, 1993, p. 667. 343 Cf. discussion of this ellipsis, pp. 20-21. 344 Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/22583, consulted on 30.09.2012. 345 Thayer, 1889/1974, p. 99.

112

measure, but it can refer also to a generic bush. The reading with ὁ σχοῖνος has the advantages of both preserving the literalness of the passage and offering a coherent rendering. with καὶ ἕτοιμον εἶναι τοῦ πορεύεσθαι μετὰ וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִׁם־אֱֹלהֶיָך c. LXX explains κυρίου θεοῦ σου. A very common theme in the M , walking humbly with od, is translated in LXX as a ‘being ready/prepared to walk with your od’. d. (v. 9-14) LXX interprets obscure expressions or words. The grammatical changes have been explained already. becomes καὶ σώσει φοβουμένους τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ‘save those וְתּושִׁיָה יִׁרְ אֶ ה שְמֶָך .i who fear his name’.

.(is translated with καὶ τίς κοσμήσει πόλιν ‘who adorns the city’. (v. 9 ּומִׁי יְעָדָּה .ii

is interpreted as μὴ πῦρ καὶ οἶκος ἀνόμου עֹוד הַאִׁש בֵית רָ שָע אֹצְרֹות רֶ שַע .iii θησαυρίζων θησαυροὺς ἀνόμους ‘are there not fire and a house of wickedness in which they treasure wicked treasures?’ (v. 10) (cf. p.34). v. 12), which has no visible antecedent, is) אֲשֶר iv. The relative pronoun translated with ἐξ ὧν referring it to ἐν ζυγῷ ἄνομος καὶ ἐν μαρσίππῳ. While MT supposed an uncertain ellipsis as v. 11, LXX connects verses 11-12: ‘will I be justified in a wicked balance and a heavy bag of treachery with which they fill their unjust wealth […]?’ is read by LXX as καὶ σκοτάσει ἐν σοὶ καὶ וְיֶשְחֲָךבְקִׁרְ בֶָך v. The ambiguous phrase ἐκνεύσει. he changes have already been presented (cf. p.103). The translation of the LXX is ‘and you will remain in darkness inside you and you will turn aside.’ vi. LXX observes that the punishments are directed to ‘my people’ (cf. Mic. 6:2,

my people’ in v. 16 (‘and the reproach of‘ עַמִׁי and consequently changes (5 ,3 my people you will bear’) to λαῶν (‘and the reproach of peoples you will bear’). 3. Easier reading: because μου is already present three times, LXX avoids repetition of μου in v. 7 after ἀσεβείας where the context is clearly referring to the first person. This presentation of the differences between LXX and MT has revealed the interpretation that the former is giving to Mic. 6. The overall message of chapter 6 does not change in the Greek recension.

113

Besides offering an interpretation of the difficult passages and corrections of a small .v) הַשִׁטִׁים element of incoherence (cf. v. 16), the Septuagint uses the ambiguous term 5) as an excuse to be more inclusive in the description of the Exodus. The allusion to the burning bush produces a far more powerful image in the mind of the readers than the crossing of the Jordan. Its purpose is that of summarizing all of od’s actions for the benefit of his people as it can be determined from its final position at the end of the list. This list is initiated in v. 4 where God states that he brought them up from the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery, sent them the three prophets to guide them, and preserved them from the curses of the other people (the story of Balak and Balaam). All this can be resumed in one phrase ‘My people […] [remember what have I done]346 from the [burning-]bush to Gilgal so that you may know the justice of the Lord.’ The questions in v. 6-7 do not present any variation from the MT.

The conclusion of the first part (interpreted as in v. 8) has a slight change in od’s message by introducing the idea of ‘being prepared’ ἕτοιμον. The word ἕτοιμος, η, ον often occurs in the LXX but in this particular form ἕτοιμον (accusative neuter singular or nominative neuter singular) there are only five occurrences in the LXX text which have a parallel to MT. All of them are connected to the temple or the presence of od (cf. Ex. 15:17: ‘mountain of your inheritance’; 2 Chr. 6:2 ‘I have built you an exalted house’; Hos. 6:3 ‘His going forth is established as the morning’; Mic. :1 ‘the mountain of the Lord shall be prepared on top of the mountains’; and Mic. 6:8).

The interpretative technique of the translator is present more in the second part because of the larger number of difficult and ambiguous passages. The voice of God is calling to the city, but the only ones to be saved are ‘those who fear his name’. he call is addressed to the tribe and to the ones who adorn the city. The rhetorical questions in verses 9-12 show more cohesiveness. LXX prefers the most literal and easiest reading when translating with fire the difficult form at the beginning of verse 10 even though it does not make sense in the context. Verses 11-12 indicate, in the LXX version, that the accumulation of wealth through deceit (wicked balance, a heavy bag of treachery and lying tongues) cannot be justified. Their sins constitute the reason for being stricken and

346 Cf. discussion on this ellipsis, p. 46.

114 destroyed (v. 13). The punishments coincide with those present in the MT. The in v. 14 with ‘and you will remain in darkness inside you וְיֶשְחֲָך בְקִׁרְ בֶָך interpretation of and you will turn aside’ represents the interior drama that takes place at the same time as the external punishment for sin. The final v. 16 in LXX depicts an identical conclusion in which both the sins (keeping the states of Omri and all the works of Ahab) and the punishments (destruction, hissing and reproach of the peoples) are summarized.

The Septuagint proves to be a reliable translation which reproduces the sense of the phrase and clarifies the ambiguous passages. The internal coherence of the elements v. 12). When ,אֲשֶר .seems to be more important than the literalness of the translation (cf ὁ σχοῖνος, the ,שִׁטִׁים the original MT is too broken to be repaired as in the case of rendering of the passage interprets the general context but it does not go so far as to correct or to supply the missing words respecting the literalness of the passage when in doubt. This fine balance between literalness and free translation makes the Septuagint the most important witness in the history of the transmission of the Hebrew Bible.

115

4. Textual-linguistic Analysis: Targum Micah 6

Targum Micah 6 is a part of the Book of the Twelve in the Targum Jonathan (TJ). The language and the history of TJ are said to be similar to that of Targum Onkelos (TO) which was written in the Standard Literary Aramaic (SLA), used by the Jews towards the end of the Second Temple Period. This dialect is common to the Genesis Apocryphon (Qumran)347 and, prior to its four-fifth century CE ‘official redaction’ in Babylon, was used in Palestine. 348 In recent times, the opinion that TO and TJ were written in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic (JPA), which infers that Targum Proto-Onkelos is dated before 135 CE, seems largely accepted.349

The first attempt to apply the textual-linguistic method to Aramaic texts is that of Paolo Messina in his thesis submitted for an MA at Studium Biblicum in Jerusalem.350 His work is limited to the Aramaic texts found in the Hebrew Bible and applies Niccacci’s synchronic approach. Often comparative, his research describes the syntactical constructs specific to Biblical Aramaic and their use in relation to temporal axes (past- present-future), syntactical value (foreground/background), and aspectual values (punctual or durative). his chapter will present Messina’s conclusions on the textual- linguistic method in Biblical Aramaic and proceed with an attempt to apply it to the Micah 6 Targum.

Regarding the rapport between JPA and Biblical Aramaic, Flesher-Chilton’s presentation of the Aramaic language is truly enlightening. Within J. A. Fitzmyer’s

347 Edward Yechezkel Kutscher, 'The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon', in Aspects of the Dead Sea scrolls; Scripta Hierosolymitana, Vol.4, ed. Chaim abin and Yigael Yadin (Jerusalem: Magnes‒Press, 1965), pp. 9-11. 348 Cf. Philip S. Alexander, ed. Targum, Targumim, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 321-325. 349 Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums (Leiden: Brill, 2011), p. 200. The Palestinian origin of TO and TJ has been advocated by Abraham Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and Its Position within the Aramaic Dialects ( el‒Aviv: el‒Aviv University, 1975 (in Hebrew)); Moshe H. Goshen-Gottstein, 'The Language of Targum Onqelos and the Model of Literary Diglossia in Aramaic', Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37, No. 2 (1978), p. 178. 350 Paolo Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale (Disertatio ad Licentiam, Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 2011). A summary of his thesis was published in Messina, 'Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico: Un approccio linguistico‒testuale', in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ. As to avoid confusion, all the subsequent footnotes mentioning Messina’s work will refer to his MA theisis. he ‘Scheme of Syntactical Construct in Biblical Aramaic’ (cf. below) is present in Niccacci’s Festschrift (Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini, eds., Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011), p. 252).

116 framework of the five stages of the Aramaic language,351 the Aramaic texts found in Ezra (4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26) belong to Imperial or Official Aramaic (700-200 BCE). After the decline of Official Aramaic, two dialects of Middle Aramaic were developed in Palestine, namely Judean Aramaic (cf. Sokoloff’s Dictionary) and Jewish Literary Aramaic (JLA). The latter has as its earliest witness the Aramaic text of Daniel (beginning of the 2nd century BCE), which is chronologically followed by Targum of Job (mid second century BCE), Genesis Apocryphon (late first century BCE). TO and TJ reveal a standardisation and a development from the JLA towards to the JPA (in the second century CE). Nevertheless, according to Flesher and Chilton, the standardisation must have been completed by a scribal elite, associated with the temple in Jerusalem. Their work is reflected in Targum Proto-Onkelos and Jonathan and must have been finished at the beginning of the first century CE, before the wars with the Romans. 352

Both Niccacci and Messina leave aside this diachronic dimension of the text when engaging into a textual-linguistic analysis. For the MT this approach has been fruitful despite the fact that it considered texts from a variety of historical periods. Messina’s presentation shows that, regardless which dialect Ezra (Official Aramaic) and Daniel (JLA) belong to, this method can yield a coherent picture of the Aramaic verbal system. This chapter will present Messina’s conclusions on the textual-linguistic method in Biblical Aramaic and proceed with an attempt to apply it to Targum Micah 6.

There are two more considerations to be added. First, it seems that the diachronic method is more concerned with the evolution in time of phonetics, phonology and vocabulary, than with the changes in verbal constructs. These constructs are fixed forms and their usage can be traced not only within a certain cluster of Aramaic dialects, but across several cognate languages (i.e. the attestation of imperative, yiqtol and qatal in Hebrew, Akkadian and Ugaritic). Thus, the theoretical suspicion that the textual- linguistic categories present in BH cannot be applied to Aramaic equivalents is unfounded.

Second, the parallelism between the MT and Targum is paramount for discovering the roles of a verbal construct in Aramaic. In contrast with the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel,

351 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, 'Phases of the Aramaic Language', in A Wandering Aramean: collected Aramaic essays (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), pp. 57-84. 352 Flesher and Chilton, 2011, pp. 270-274.

117 the Targum Micah 6 has a parallel Hebrew text, which is followed almost to the letter. These types of texts may be used as guidelines to ascertain the value that verbal forms assume in Aramaic in general, and then safely deduce their value in other texts.

4.1. Verbal system in Biblical Aramaic

Messina identifies 12 syntactical constructs which are separately examined and then systematically presented in terms of their linguistic attitude (narrative or direct speech text). The present outline will firstly describe the narrative syntactical constructs and the direct speech constructs and secondly their use on temporal axes (past-present-future), in a similar way to Niccacci’s description of Biblical Hebrew syntax.

Textual linguistics encompasses three elements: (1) linguistic attitude (narrative, direct discourse); (2) prominence (foreground-background or FLC-SLC); (3) linguistic perspective (retrieved information, the level of the story itself, anticipated information).353 These main textual linguistic features are the same when applied to the Aramaic texts. A distinctive characteristic of Aramaic is the importance of the initial syntactical constructs. Both when introducing a new temporal axis and when the linguistic attitude is changed (narrative-direct speech, direct speech-narrative), the specific initial construct is used.

4.1.2. Narrative texts a. Narrative texts are all connected to the past tense. Every narrative passage sets out with a flashback (prelude) part introduced by an x-qetal. If the author wants to add more information, the prelude will proceed with syntactical constructs like qetal, x- yiqtul, waw-yiqtul, x-participle and SNC. All syntactical constructs in the prelude are on the secondary level of communication.

b. The initial forms for the FLC (regent) are qetal, x-qetal, participle, x-participle These macro-syntactic markers .(אֲלּו/אֲרּו ,כְעַן ,אֱדַיִׁן) [and macro-syntactic markers [MSM

353 Cf. Niccacci, 1990, p. 20.

118 render as regent any kind of SLC syntactical forms.354 The continuative forms are qetal and participle.

c. Background information (SLC) is provided by using x-qetal, x-yiqtul, x- participle and SNC.

4.1.3. Direct speech

These passages have all three temporal axes. In addition, the future tense records a second value with the future volitive.

a. Past tense has one initial form (foreground) x-qetal and two continuative forms - qetal and participle (also on FLC). Subordination is rendered with x-qetal (continuative form: qetal), x-yiqtul, x-participle (continuative form: participle), and SNC.

b. Present tense is initiated either with x-participle, or with SNC. The continuative syntactical constructs are the participle and SNC. All forms belong to FLC. On SLC direct speech proceeds with x-participle (continuative form: participle) and SNC (continuative form: participle).355

c. Future indicative has only x-yiqtul as initial form which can be continued with waw-yiqtul or simple yiqtul. This is not the case for future volitive where yiqtul continuative is always employed without waw.356 Background information is provided through x-yiqtul (continuative form: yiqtul), x-qetal, x-participle and SNC.

d. Future volitive has two sets of initial forms in Biblical Aramaic: imperative and x-imperative, yiqtul (short form) and x-yiqtul. The continuative forms are yiqtul (also short form) and imperative. Subordination is expressed through x-imperative and x- yiqtul (short form).357

354 Cf. Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 68:‘La presenza di un SgM [segno macrosintattico cf. MSM] lungo il racconto indica che la proposizione seguente si trova sul PP [primo piano] della comunicazione quanto alla MR [messa in rilievo], anche quando questa costituita da un costrutto che normalmente si trova sullo Sf [sfondo]’. 355 his particular form is refered to in the table below as ‘qetal*c’ (qetal background continuative form). Similarly there is a ‘participle*c’ (participle background continuative form). Both sigles intend to discriminate background SLC forms from FLC qatal and participle forms. 356 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 31. 357 My presentation is based on Chapters 3 and 4 of Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale pp. 85-109.

119

Biblical Aramaic is more flexible in using these syntactical constructs. (1) The participle may occupy a foreground position (both in narrative passages and direct speech) in concurrence with qetal. (2) There is no syntactical difference between waw- qetal and qetal as continuation forms in narrative passages and in direct speech (both on FLC). The same rule applies to the yiqtul and weyiqtul forms. (3) There are no different types of negation for the indicative tenses, as happens in Biblical Hebrew (for example -וְֹלא qatal while for weqatal it is not-וְֹלא yiqtol but-ֹלא the negation for wayyiqtol is not and (ֹלא) yiqtol). Nevertheless, the rule of different negations for indicative-וְֹלא qatal but for indicative לא is still applied in Biblical Aramaic which has (ָאל) future volitive forms for future volitive forms.358 ָאל and

358 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p 28n.106 and p. 107.

120

4.2. Micah 6 Targum

This chapter in the Targum is divided into two parts (1-8 and 9-16).359 The first part starts with an imperative, offering a clear indication that the text is a direct speech passage. Consequently, all syntactical forms in this chapter will be analysed as parts of נבייא דיוי על קרתא מכלן :direct speech. The second part sets off with an x-participle (v. 9 which is the normal initiation for the present tense in direct speech. Its continuation (קל is an x-participle which represents background information on SLC. This verse has the sole purpose of introducing another direct speech in v. 10-16.

שמעו כען ית דיוי אמר קום דין עם טוריא וישמען רמתא360 קלך :v. 1

Hear to what the Lord says: Rise up, contend before the mountains and the heights hear your voice!

This first verse commences with an IMP plural followed by an x-particple participle) which in turn introduces another direct speech with another two IMP+דִׁי) to transform the clause into a SNC אֲשֶר shares the same purpose as the Hebrew דִׁי .plural type.361 Consequently, the participle loses its verbal value as attested in other cases362 .who is found here in a prominent position (דיוי) and all the attention shifts towards God

does not have the macro-syntactic function defended by Messina363 but it acts as the כְעַן (cf. Gen. 13:9; 14:52; 27:20; Mic. 3:1, 9; 6:5) נָא equivalent of the particle interjection is only used כְעַן because כְעַן after an IMP form. Messina does not mention this use of with a macro-syntactic function in Biblical Aramaic.

The .(וישמען) The actual words of God start with two IMPs followed by one waw-yiqtul obvious temporal axis is that of the future volitive. When speaking about the future volitive in Hebrew, it is possible to differentiate between (1) weyiqtol (normal form of continuation for future volitive after an IMP; final inference) and (2) weqatal (normal

359 For the Aramaic critical text Sperber’s edition was used (Sperber, 1962, pp. 447-449). ,רָ ם Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim (London: Luzac&Co., 1903), p. 1481: masculine 360 .high, exalted :רָ מָתָא feminine plural ,רָ מָא 361 Niccacci, 1990, pp. 23-24. 362 Cf. Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale pp. 41-48. 363 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 72:‘Il suo uso .in ebraico. Il suo valore è temporale-argomentativo’ cf עתָה può essere paragonato a quello di [כְעַן] Niccacci, 1990, p. 101. This particular function is present in Hos. 5:3; Mic. 4:9, 14.

121 form of continuation for future indicative after an x-yiqtol; conclusive inference).364 In BH, waw becomes an integral part of syntactical constructs assigning them a new meaning (cf. wayyiqtol, weyiqtol, weqatal forms). This is not the case in BA where the waw simply preserves its copulative sense. The waw-yiqtul should be interpreted according to the first option, as the influence of future volitive is very strong. This verse is exact translation of the Hebrew text. v. 2: שמעו טוריא ית דינא דיוי ועקריא יסודי ארעא ארי דינא קדם יוי עם עמיה ועם בית ישראל עביד תוכיחא Hear, mountains, the judgment of the Lord, and roots of the foundation of the earth, because [there is] judgment before the Lord against his people and against the house of Israel he is doing the admonishment.

.(ועקריא יסודי ,טוריא ארעא) which has two subjects שמעו This verse repeats the IMP form The reasons for this call presented through two sentences (SNC and x-participle) are on The first sentence is a SNC with .אֲרֵ י the SLC introduced by the subordinate conjunction כִׁי רִׁ יב לַיהוָה ] no verbal form and has a descriptive purpose, preserving the Hebrew syntax while the second is an x-participle which translates the Hebrew x-yiqtol. The 365,[עִׁם־עַמֹו use of x-yiqtol and its parallel Aramaic x-participle aim to illustrate that by ‘my people’ the author refers to ‘Israel’.366

עמי מא טבא אמרית למעבד לך ולא עבדית או מא מרועא367 קשיא אסגיתי368 עלך אסהיד קדמי :v. 3-4 ארי אסיקתך369 מארעא דמצרים ומבית עבדותא פרקתך ושלחית קדמך תלתה נביי משה לאלפא מסרת ודינין אהרן לכפרא על עמא ומרים לאוראה לנשיא

364 Cf discussion Niccacci, 1990, p. 91. 365 Cf. Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 49. 366 A similar temporal shift from weqatal → x-yiqtol in Ex. 18:26bc is observed in Niccacci, 1990, p. 67. 367 Jastrow, 1903, p. 839: (evil) occurrence, visitation. .in afel to enlarge, increase, make great סגי :Jastrow, 1903, p. 954 368 aufsteigen lassen/to release. Cf. Gustaf ,אַסֵיק Dalman and Stevenson record of the Afel perfect form 369 Hermann Dalman, Aram isch‒neuhebr isches Handwörterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch (Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann Verlag, 1922), p. 292 and William Barron Stevenson, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), p. 61.This particular form is an Afel perfect 1 singular are equivalent סְקֵל or סְקֵיל with a pronominal suffix 2 masculine singular. Jastrow mentions that the root can be אַסֵיק in Afel (p. 997). As it stands the afel form סְקֵל but has no records of any ,עלה of the Hebrew indicates that it is about a perfect אסיקתך either a perfect 3 singular or an imperfect 1singular. The form .form, cf. Stevenson, 1962, p. 83, §36.5 כְתַבְתְ tense as the suffix is attached to a

122

My people, what good have I promised370 to do for you and I did not do [it] or have I increased an [evil] visitation against you, testify before me, because I brought you from the land of Egypt and from the house of slavery I ransomed you and I sent before you my three prophets: Moses to teach the tradition of judgments, Aaron to atone for the people and Miriam to teach the women?

The syntactical analysis of MT371 established that these two verses share a very strong syntactical and logical connection. The last question of verse 3 in MT is a ‘rhetorical interrogative question’ which presents the reason or the motivation for the question in verse 4. The Aramaic translator reproduces this strong connection and adds a few comments to the list of names in verse 4 (using the infinitive). While these comments in verse 4 do not change in any way the syntactical situation in verses 3c-4, the first simple מא טבא אמרית למעבד ) rhetorical question is developed into a full apodosis-protasis period .(לך ולא עבדית

Syntactically, the level of communication shifts back from the second (v. 2bc) to the my people’), the‘) עמי first one with the first rhetorical question. After the vocative .(ולא עבדית) qetal-לא-followed by waw (מא טבא אמרית) discourse proceeds with an x-qetal The first construction is the usual initial form for the past in direct speech FLC.372 Its aspect is punctual and refers to a specific time in the past. The normal continuation on the same level is the waw-qetal or qetal. According to Messina, there is no difference between them at the syntactical level,373 whereas in Hebrew the value of qatal is ,qetal.374 Consequently-לא different from weqatal. Also the negation for qetal is simply the first two syntactical constructions in verse 4 remain on FLC.

qetal are equal as a result of the-לא-At the syntactical level, the x-qetal and waw copulative coordination. Nevertheless, the logic of the message reveals them to be I have‘ אמרית למעבד לך closer to a protasis-apodosis period. In this case, the protasis is I did not do [it]’. The translation should be‘ ולא עבדית promised’ and the apodosis is ‘What good despite promising to do it for you did I not do?’ One mark of this particular

370 The context here clearly shows that it is not merely about saying but it is about promising, vowing. 371 Cf. pp. 41-42. 372 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 25: In direct speech, ‘questo costrutto [x-qetal] si riscontra sempre e solo al principio della catena temporale del passato e indica l’inizio di un racconto orale’. 373 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 21. 374 Cf. Dan 2:10; 3:12, 27; 5:22-23; 6:5,14,18,22,24; Jer. 10:11; Ez. 5:6-7.

123

which is not repeated in the second ,טבא connection is the existence of a common object sentence.

formed by an x-qetal FLC, is a ,(או מא מרועא קשיא אסגיתי עלך) The second construction או The coordinate conjunction .מא טבא אמרית למעבד לך parallel rhetorical question with connects these two rhetorical questions.

The fluidity of the direct discourse enables the author to shift from past tense to future Messina accepts Niccacci’s classification .(אסהיד קדמי) volitive tense with the imperative of the imperative as a volitive tense.375

ומבית and ארי אסיקתך) Verse 4 resumes the past tense on the SLC with two x-qetals followed by the normal continuation form in past tense, waw-qetal. These (עבדותא פרקתך three constructions represent a heterogeneous shift both in tense and syntax (from the imperative in v. 3d), offering the reasons for the motivated question.376

עמי אידכר כען מא מלך בלק מלכא דמואב ומא אתיב יתיה בלעם בר בעור הלא גבורן v. 5 אתעבידא377 לכון ממישר שטין עד בית גלגלא בדיל למדע זכותא דיוי My people, remember what Balak king of Moab advised and what Balaam son of Beor answered him. Were mighty deeds not done for you from the valley of Shittim to the house of Gilgal in order that you know the meritorious deeds of the Lord?

and an imperative construct, returning the עַמִׁי Verse 5 begins with the same vocative direct speech on FLC, future volitive. Two x-qetal forms on SLC enclose information in the past tense and represent two indirect questions. Moreover, these constructs retain a descriptive punctual aspect and translate accurately the Hebrew x-qatal forms.

with a מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל The Aramaic version explains the obscure elliptic construction negative rhetorical question, which is an x-qetal. Besides revealing that the events took which in fact is ,גבורן place in the past, this construction highlights the importance of the

375 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 53. Mentioning Weinrich’s research, he asserts: ‘Questa forma [imperative] si trova sollo al interno del discorso diretto e appartiene all’asse del futuro, in quanto l’azione che essa esprime non ancora avvenuta nel momento della comunicazione’. 376 Cf. Messina, p. 88. ,to be done to be made עבד Jastrow, 1903, p. 1035. This is an ithpeel perfect 3 feminine plural from 377 become.

124

The Aramaic version proceeds then with the infinitival 378.עבד the subject of the passive .בדיל construction introduced by the subordinate conjunction v. 6:

במא אפלח קדם יוי אשתעבד לאלהא דשכינתיה379 בשמי מרומא האפלח קדמוהי בעלוון בעגלין בני שנא With what shall I worship before the Lord or shall I bow to God whose Shekinah [is] in the high heavens? Shall I worship before him with burnt offerings, with one-year-old calves?

This verse marks a complete shift in tense, person and level of communication from the previous ones. The author follows the original Hebrew text, expanding only when referring to the divine name of God, as a sign of deep reverence.

Similarly, the syntactical situation entirely reproduces the Hebrew setting. The succession of constructions is x-yiqtul–yiqtul–x-yiqtul, all rhetorical questions being posed in the first person. The general temporal axis is future indicative. The first two constructions fit into the pattern discerned by Messina: it starts with an x-yiqtul, followed by a yiqtul on the same level of communication.380 As an observation, the rule on non-initial yiqtul as pointed out by Niccacci381 does not apply in Aramaic (cf. discussion, p. 45).

X-yiqtul/yiqtul forms are rarely associated with narrative passages and only for conveying background information.382 he main purpose of yiqtul is to ‘announce an action which still has to happen’383 and it is the usual form of continuation in the future indicative. In direct speech x-yiqtul functions are more diverse, as it can be found either in the foreground (as initial form) or in the background.384

378 Stressing the importance of the element x is one of the purposes of the x-qetal/x-qatal constructions cf. Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 23; Niccacci, 1990, p. 69. .royal residence, Shekinah, Divine Presence, holy inspiration – שְכִׁינָה :Jastrow, 1903, p. 1573 379 380 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 28. 381 Niccacci, 'A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence', 1987, pp. 7-19. 382 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale pp. 26 and 31. 383 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 27. 384 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 32.

125

In normal circumstances, the third construct (x-yiqtol) would have marked the shift from the foreground to background information.385 Instead, due to the atypical succession of rhetorical questions, the last x-yiqtol in the verse should be interpreted as an initial form in the future tense FLC.

היתרעי יוי באלפי דכרין ברבות נחלין דמשח האתין ברי חלף חובי חיבוב386 מעי חלף חטאי נפשי v. 7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my son387 in place of my transgressions, the love of my womb in place of the sins of my soul?

The rhetorical questions continue in verse 7 with two consecutive x-yiqtuls in the future indicative tense. The first one repositions the discourse on to the foreground. The continuation form in the future tense is (waw)-yiqtul388 both in the foreground and background. Nevertheless, I presume this second x-yiqtul is on FLC future tense, במא אפלח because it comes after a long line of parallel rhetorical questions initiated by הלא גבורן in v. 6. This x-yiqtul closes the series of rhetorical questions initiated by קדם יוי in v. 5. v. 8:

אתחוה לך אנשא מא טב ומא יוי תבע391 מינך אלהין למעבד דין דקשוט ומרחם גמילות חסדא והוי390 צניע389 להלכא בדחלתא דאלהך It has been told to you, O man, what is good and what the Lord demands from you: only to do the justice of righteousness, and to love deeds of kindness. And be decorous to walk in the fear of your God!

385 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 34: ‘La presenza di un successivo x-yiqtul [after an x-yiqtol-yiqtol sequence] o di un altro costrutto interrompe questa catena e determina, rispettivamente, il passaggio dalla comunicazione dal primo piano allo Sf[ondo] oppure la transizione verso un altro asse temporale’. .love, loved object ,חִׁיבּובָא :Jastrow, 1903, p. 450 386 cf. Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targums of the Minor ,בכורי Some manuscripts add 387 Prophets (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), p. 124. This is considered an addition which translates the .but not necessarily a part of the Targum critical text, cf. Sperber, 1962, p. 448 ,בְכֹורִׁ י Hebrew 388 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale pp. 28-29. ,retired, discrete chaste, decorous cf. Jastrow, 1903 צְנּועַ Jastrow derives this word (after Rashi) from 389 pp. 1291-1292. ‒cf. Gustaf Hermann Dalman, Grammatik des j disch הוי Imperative masculine singular from 390 pal stinischen Aram isch (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905), p. 354; Jastrow, 1903, p. 338. .(בקש and דרש to ask, to demand; to enquire, to search (equivalent of תבע :Jastrow, 1903, p. 1645 391

126

In this verse direct speech returns to the past tense through one qetal (foreground) followed by two indirect questions. While the first indirect question is a SNC, the second is an x-participle construction, both on the background.

כִׁי אִׁם The Aramaic version reproduces faithfully the Hebrew subordinate conjunction used as an adversative conjunction after a אלא is an equivalent of אלהין .אלהין with כִׁי negative sentence.392 This use corresponds to the one determined by Niccacci for introduces two infinitival constructions. Despite the fact that the whole verse אלהין 393.אִׁם these particular ,(אתחוה) is syntactically subordinated to a qetal in the past tense constructions are translated with the present tense, as they refer to od’s commandments. These commandments cannot be limited to the moment of their appearance in time, as they are universal and equally refer to the past, present and the the Aramaic translator uses a future volitive ,וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִׁם־אֱֹלהֶיָך future. When translating צניע) with the imperative and participle הוי tense with the periphrastic construction of .(והוי

קל נבייא דיוי על קרתא מכלן ומלפין דחלין לשמך שמע מלכא ושלטונא ושאר עמא דארעא v. 9 The voice of the prophets of the Lord to the city shouts because teachers fear your name. Listen, O king and governor, and the rest of the people of the land.

Verses 9-16 represent the second part of the prophecy in Micah 6 and are addressed to the ‘king and governor, and the rest of the people of the land’. After naming the addressees, the ‘voice of the prophets’ lists the sins of the people (6:10-12) and the punishments (6:13-16).

Verse 9 proceeds with a succession of two x-participles in the present tense. While the first construction signals the shift to the present tense, the second one presents background information.

In order to determine the value of the second x-participle, three elements should be taken into account. (1) This second x-participle belongs to the SLC (so it is subordinated to the first x-participle) and refers to a ‘unique action concomitant or successive to the one presented on the main level of communication’394. (2) Due to the

392 Dalman, 1905, p. 241. 393 Cf. Niccacci, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', 2007, p. 134. 394 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 40.

127

ותושיה יראה obscurity of the Hebrew original, the Aramaic translator is forced to interpret and teachers fear your name’). MT remains enigmatic and‘) ומלפין דחלין לשמך with שמך neutral by recording only facts (‘the voice of God calls to the city and it is wisdom to fear his name’), with no further comments on the historical setting. The Aramaic into מַטֶה version expands on the suggestion of a specific political power induced by may לשמך kings and governors’ who are called to listen. (3) The 2 masculine suffix of‘ be referred to od (‘teachers fear your name, [ od]’) or to the king and governor (‘teachers fear your name, [O king]’).

In this context, it is reasonable to assume that the teachers fear the king, not God, and to interpret the suffix as referring to the king. Fear of the king makes more sense. People do not dare to speak against the king who is responsible for or even a partaker of their sins and, consequently, the ‘voice of the prophets’ reacts. his verse ascertains the divine source of the prophetic voice, presents its historical status, and calls for everybody’s attention (king, governor and people alike).

עוד דאית בית רשיעא אוצרין דרשע ומכילן דשקר מיתין395 לוט v. 10-12 היזכון במוזנוון דרשע ובכיס דביה מתקלין רברבין ודעדקין דעתירהא מלן אוצריהון חטוף ויתבהא ממללין שקר ולישנהון נכלין בפומהון (10) Are there still the house of the wicked treasures of evil and measures of lie which bring curse? (11) Will they be justified with scales of wickedness and with the bags in which there are weights big and small, (12) whose rich one fill their treasury with violence and whose inhabitants [repeatedly] speak lie and their tongues [are] deceit in their mouths? Verses 10-12 contain two rhetorical questions. Syntactically, the entire verse 10 is a still)396 and changes its discourse to the present) עוד SNC which begins with the adverb tense on the FLC.

in verse 11, which is the initial (היזכון) This regent state is preserved with the x-yiqtul It should be .ה form for the future indicative. The element x is the interrogative prefix noted that v. 10 is in the present tense, while verse 11 is in the future.

;to bring, carry, cause to come cf. Jastrow, 1903, p. 132 אתא/אתי Participle afel masculine plural from 395 Dalman, 1905, p. 359. 396 Dalman, 1905, p. 213.

128

Messina makes a distinction .דִׁי Verse 12 is introduced with the subordinate conjunction between its function at clause level to express the Genitive case (similar to the construct state) and its function in a phrase, where it can introduce either verbal clauses (that actually have a verbal form), or a SNC (with no verb). Messina concludes that it is x-)participle; and)-דִׁי ;x-)yiqtul)-דִׁי ;x-)qetal)-דִׁי :employed in four types of constructions to‘ :אֲשֶר SNC. Most frequently used as a conjunction, it has the same function as-דִׁי nominalize the subsequent construct’.397

x-qetal, proceeding-דִׁי Verse 12 comprises three sentences, all on SLC. It starts with a with one x-participle and one SNC. The Aramaic version preserves the ambiguity of the .(v. 9 the city) קרתא is referring to דִׁי MT, which leads to the conclusion that

In narrative text and in direct speech, x-qetal (background) either comments or adds specific details related to the story presented in the foreground.398 The x-participle construct is polyvalent because it can fill both the functions belonging to x-qetal (commentary and adding details) and to x-yiqtol (repetitive actions or describing an action in progress).399 The SNC on SLC communicates contemporary information or has a descriptive function.400 Considering the value of each construction, it is reasonable to assume that the translation of verse 12 is: ‘whose rich fill their granary with violence (adds a specific detail) and whose inhabitants lie [repeatedly] and their tongues [are] deceit in their mouths’ (reinforces the idea of speaking lies).

ואף אנא איתיתי401 עלך מרע ומחא אצדינך על דחבתא v. 13

Also I brought upon you sickness and plague I made you desolate because you have sinned.

Verse 13 begins with an x-qetal followed by qetal continuative, both on the foreground. The background information is introduced with an x-qetal, where the x element is the

397 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 56. He in pp. 56-68. There is no difference in syntax דִׁי dedicates an entire section to developing the uses of between constructions with x and those without. 398 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 25. 399 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 40. 400 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 49. The SNC is defined as a syntactical construct which contains either a ‘participle with nominal function (attributive .(with or without participle’ (pp. 8-49 אִׁיתַי or as substantive) or the particle ,afel to bring, carry אתי/אתא :afel 1 singular; cf. Jastrow, 1903, p. 132 אתי/אתא :Dalman, 1905, p. 358 401 cause to come.

129

The Aramaic is more explicit in this verse, as it 402.על ד subordinate conjunction mentions more specific punishments for sin (sickness and plague) than its Hebrew counterpart (smiting and desolation).

את תיכול ולא תסבע ויהי לך למרע במעך ותדביק ולא תשיזיב ודשתיזיב לחרבא אמסר v. 14-15 את תזרע ולא תחצוד את תבדיר זיתין ולא תשוף משח ותעצר ענבין ולא תשתי חמר You shall eat, but not be satisfied and there shall be sickness in your belly; you shall obtain but not save, and what you save to the sword I shall hand over. You shall sow, but not harvest. You shall tread olives, but not anoint yourself with oil, and [you] will tread grapes, but not drink wine.

These two verses list all the curses that will fall on people and belong to the future tense. The projection of these curses in the future tense is signalled by the fact that all verbal constructions represent a variation of yiqtul.

Another common aspect is the parallelism that influences the succession of the syntactical constructs. Rather than presenting the curses with coordinate yiqtul, the initial x-yiqtul is employed (14a, 15ac) in order to introduce a human action (eat, sow, yiqtul (14b, 15bd). The latter forms-לָא-tread olives) which is continued with waw predict their failure (you shall not be satisfied, you shall not reap, you shall not anoint yiqtul- לא-yourself) which can be further developed with a chain of waw-yiqtul/ waw (cf. v. 14 and 15c-f) in the foreground.

The use of the initial x-yiqtul has the purpose of organising the human actions into three categories: i. Work of the land which is expanded in verse 14. All constructs remain on FLC while the last x-yiqtul (14g) relates additional information on SLC. g f e d c b a את תיכול ולא תסבע ויהי לך למרע במעך ותדביק ולא תשיזיב ודשתיזיב לחרבא אמסר yiqtul x-yiqtul-לָא-yiqtul waw-yiqtul waw-yiqtul waw-לָא-x-yiqtul waw-yiqtul waw ii. Sowing.

b a את תזרע ולא תחצוד yiqtul x-yiqtul-לא-waw

402 Dalman, 1905, p. 233: wegen [because of/on account of].

130

iii. Treading olives and grapes. f e d c את תבדיר זיתין ולא תשוף משח ותעצר ענבין ולא תשתי חמר yiqtul x-yiqtul-לא-yiqtul waw-yiqtul waw-לא-waw v. 16:

על403 דנטרתון גזירת בית עמרי ועבדתון עובדי בית אחאב והליכתון בנמוסיהון בדיל לְמִׁמְסַר יתך לצדו ויתבהא לאשתממו וחסודי עמי תקבלון Because you observed the decrees404 of the house of Omri and you have done the works of the of the house of Ahab and you have walked in their laws, so as to deliver you to desolation and her inhabitants to become desolate; and the shame of my people you shall receive.

This verse illustrates the underlying cause for the curses that will strike people in the future. Consequently, the discourse shifts to the past tense on SLC through an x-qetal followed by two continuative waw-qetals.

What follows is divergent from what MT transmits. This divergence includes two which obviously renders them ,405בדיל infinitival constructions introduced by subordinated to the previous chain of x-qetal→waw-qetals.

The last waw-x-yiqtul can be interpreted either as belonging to the future tense FLC, with the sole purpose of introducing a consequence (‘Consequently, the shame of my people you shall receive’), or to the past tense SLC, by assuming one of the functions listed by Messina (emphasis on the element x, repetitive action, or it presents important information).406

403 Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan, conjunction because, since. He inserts here an ,עַל :Israel: Bar-Ilan University-Press, 1990), p. 406 observation which is useful in determining up to which point this Aramaic translation is a literal one: ארום [This word is never employed in the Targumic text in literal translations which use either [see entry‘ .’בגין or 404 Some manuscripts support the MT plural form, cf. Cathcart and Gordon, 1989, p. 125. ,cf. Dalman, 1905, p. 233: wegen (on account of); Jastrow, 1903 בְדִׁיל Regarding the significances of 405 pp. 140: on account of, for the sake of, in order that; Sokoloff, 1990, p. 85: (conjunction) on account of, since, in order that. 406 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale pp. 31-33.

131

4.3. What type of translation is the Targumic version of Micah 6?

The definition of the word translation is different in antiquity from what it is believed to be today. Oxford English Dictionary defines translation as ‘the action or process of turning from one language into another; also, the product of this; a version in a different language’.407 When applied to the translation of the Hebrew Bible, for the ancients, this idea was more specific and oriented towards obtaining a ‘sacred text as intelligible as possible to people with social status, cultural and linguistic context different from that in which the Bible was written’.408 ibera’s definition does not limit the Targum translation to a mere word-by-word or thought-for-thought reproduction of the text into Aramaic, but also implies that the translator has to incorporate into his work elements that would render it understandable to its readers. He also concludes that the Targum was destined for the people in Palestine who did not understand Hebrew any longer. The authors followed specific hermeneutical rules, derash, which resulted in texts ‘literally translated’ or even in a ‘developed commentary’ of a specific passage.409

Still as a preliminary remark, Alexander classifies the Targum translations into two main types. While type A argum contains passages that can be ‘bracketed out, leaving behind a viable one-to-one rendering of the original’, type B argum excludes this possibility because ‘the translation is dissolved in the paraphrase’.410 If the main concern of the Targum translator is not literalness, but the facilitation of understanding, then he is able to move freely from literal translation to commentary, as dictated by necessity.

Moreover, commenting on ‘converse translation’, ordon observed that other factors might influence the translation process: (1) a certain ‘interpretative impulse’ of the translators who were aware of the ‘modifications introduced by the later biblical writers’ (referring to the tradition of the transmission of the text); (2) translators were also sensitive to the fact ‘that biblical manuscripts sometimes fail’; (3) they are unable

407 Oxford English Dictionary, translation (Oxford University Press), accessed on 20 September 2012 . 408 Joseph Ribera, 'The Targum: From Translation to Interpretation' in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context', ed. Derek Robert George Beattie and Martin McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT Press [JSOTSS 166], 1994), p. 218. 409 Ribera, 'The Targum: From Translation to Interpretation' in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context', , pp. 218 and 225. 410 Philip S. Alexander, 'Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures', in Mikra, ed. M. J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1988), pp. 229-237.

132 to transmit their motivation for offering a different reading (as a modern translator would do through footnotes).411

There has been a delimitation of at least two types of approaches to evaluating the Targums as a translation. One is connected to the methods employed,412 while the other is concerned with its interpretative character.413

After this brief account of the research pertaining to Targum translation, the remaining part includes comments on (a) the changes in syntax of the Aramaic version, (b) on omissions and substitutions, and finally (c) on pluses.

(a) On the syntactical level, the Aramaic version is very close to MT. It replicates not only the succession of the verbal forms but also their aspects. The aspect of the verb is not an exact science but, in my opinion, the durative aspect is visible in case 1 (x-participle), in case 3 (waw-participle), and case 4 (x-qetal), while the punctual state is discernible in case 2 (waw-qetal). The change from infinitive to IMP (v. 8) gives a more engaging effect to the exposition, but it does not alter the sense of the phrase. Where necessary, the Aramaic version promotes clarity by the logical presentation of the facts (v.16).

1. The first two verses of Micah 6 are translated in a regular fashion by both the Hebrew and Aramaic versions. In verse 1, both versions show a convergence in the sequence of time (3 IMPs↔weyiqtul). erse two displays one variation in terms of syntax from the sequence IMP→SNC↔x-yiqtol (M ) to IMP→SNC↔x-participle (BA). The use of x-yiqtols forms in the background MT suggests the emphasis on the element x414 and a repeated action.415 x-participle is attested in BA as conveying

411 R.P. Gordon, ''Converse Translation' in the Targums and Beyond', Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 10, No. 19 (1999), p. 18-21. When speaking about converse translation, Gordon refers (p. ) to Klein’s categories (M. L. Klein, 'Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique', Biblica 57 (1976), pp. 515-537) ‘addition and deletion of the negative particle; replacement of the verb, resolution of the rhetorical question, and addition of the negative particle dela (‘lest’)’. 412 Cf. Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic. The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1973); Ho, 2009, pp. 33-184. 413 Cf. Arie Van der Kooij, 'Some Remarks on the Analysis of the Interpretative Character of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, with particular attention to Targum Isaiah XXIII', in Dutch Studies in the Targum, ed. I. E. Zwiep and A. Kuyt (Amsterdam: Juda Palache Institute, 1993), pp. 78-88. 414 Niccacci, 1990, p.67. 415 Niccacci, 1990, p. 68.

133 contemporary action when used in the future tense SLC.416 Here, the translator is has in (וַאֲנִׁי אֲבָרֲ כֵם) probably trying to refer to that sense of equivalence that x-yiqtol Num. 6:27, as pointed out by Niccacci.417 In regard to that passage, he thinks that Aaron’s putting the name of od on the sons of Israel is equivalent to od’s blessing. Similarly, both the M and the Aramaic versions of Micah 6 consider ‘my people’ as equivalent to Israel (M ) or ‘house of Israel’ (Aramaic version). On a lexical level, the verb) עביד תוכיחא to argue) to the participle construction יכח) יִׁתְוַכָח shift from the yiqtol .does not change the sense of the sentence (418יכח derived from תוכיחה and noun עבד

2. In both versions, verses 3-4 are connected through the causative conjunction The general syntactical sequence is the .(ארי and the Aramaic equivalent כִׁי) ’because‘ same in both languages apart from the replacement of the last wayyiqtol (MT v. 4c) with the Aramaic correspondence waw-qetal. Qetal and waw-qetal occur both in narrative passages and in direct discourse. Essentially similar to the Hebrew wayyiqtol, (waw-)qetal is used in the narration to present the story in the FLC,419 so there is no change in this respect.

3. In verse 8, the Aramaic version does change MT as the last two infinitives are turned into (a) a waw-participle (contemporaneity as a continuative form420 of the While the former modification does not .(והוי צניע) infinitive) and into (b) an IMP form visibly change the syntactical relationships, the latter converts the temporal axis to the future indicative FLC, becoming a calling to practise the good deeds preached.

4. The Aramaic version reproduces the syntactical situation in MT Mic. 6:9-12. The only difference is the variation from the Aramaic x-qetal421 (which translates the Hebraic x-qatal)422 to x-participle (v. 12c), all being able to refer an action that is simultaneous to the regent clause in SLC.

416 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 112. 417 Niccacci, 1990, p. 92. 418 Jastrow, 1903, p. 1652. 419 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 22. 420 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 112: ‘In direct speech, on the contrary, it [the participle] may in the first level of communication in the temporal axis of past and present tense, and it can be found as continuative form of second level of communication in the same temporal axes, denoting basically the contemporaneity ’. 421 Messina, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒testuale p. 40. 422 Niccacci, 1990, p. 165.

134

5. Verse 16 presents a more complex setting. MT uses a weyyiqtol (continuation form in future indicative) in the passive diathesis followed by a wayyiqtol (continuation form in the past tense), and a secondary construction infinitive with x-yiqtol. None of these constructions fit well together (2 forms of continuation from 2 different temporal axes; infinitive followed by x-yiqtol). Consequently, the Aramaic version (instead of the confusing future weyyiqtol) begins the translation with an active423 x-qetal, the normal form in direct speech, with a past tense form on SLC, transforming the whole verse into a causal clause. The following waw-qetals add reasons for the preceding curses.

(b) The Aramaic version counts only two omissions, neither of them impacting on Similarly, there are 424.כֹל and of תִׁתִׁי the message of the chapter: suffix 1sg. in also only two substitutions:

M. L. Klein thinks .קדם is replaced with the preposition לְ v. 2) The preposition) .1 or for other more direct ,את as a substitute for the nota accusative‘ קדם that prepositions, is common in both the divine and the human contexts’ and ‘a natural result of the idiomatic variance between biblical Hebrew and Targumic Aramaic’.425 .v. 4), or introducing the name of God (v) לְ ,(v. 3) בְ The preposition is also replacing v. 6c) where MT uses just a verbal ,קדמוהי) 6a) and referring to him more explicitly -in relation to God is interpreted by Ho as a sign of anti קדם The use of .(הַאֲקַדְמֶּנּו) suffix anthropomorphism, a ‘buffer term to maintain the dignity of od and to tone down strong feelings like anger’.426

instead of the waw (v.3). The או The rhetorical questions are connected with .2 modification had already been signalled by Sperber.427 Similar substitutions occur in Mal. 1:8 and 2:17.

3. When translating words that are not familiar to the community, the Aramaic is translated with the pael participle אֵיפַת) version attempts to find the closest synonym

-אִׁכַף :The inverse phenomenon of changing from active to passive diathesis is also present in v. 6b 423 Probably, this could be interpreted as a sign of reverence to God, as these two .אתחוה –הִׁגִׁיד :v. 8a ;אַשְתַעֲבַד verses refer to actions connected to his true worship or his commandments. 424 Sperber, 1973, pp. 72 and 80. a Pseudo‒anti‒anthropomorhpism in the argums', The Journal of :קדם M. L. Klein, 'The Preposition 425 Theological Studies XXX, No. 2 (1979), p. 507. 426 Ho, 2009, p. 411. 427 Sperber, 1973, p. 92.

135

which‘ זְעּומָה) to measure) or the Aramaic equivalent כול from 428מכילן masculine plural 430לוט means ‘which is excited’429 in Aramaic, instead the construction (זעם) ’is cursed .(brings a curse’ is employed) (v.10‘ מיתין

.(v.16) 432חסודי is substituted with 431חֶרְ פַת The noun .4

(c) Addition is the favourite tool used by the translator. The multiple uses of the addition range from giving explanations (case 2.i), to inserting a clarification (case 2.iii) or to transmitting a specific feeling (case 1), and ending with disambiguation (case 5.i).

v. 2). The second change is an addition) בית ישראל with יִׁשְרָ אֵל The extension of .1 with the intent to give a sense of the community to the reader.

As .מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי לְָך for מא טבא אמרית למעבד לך ולא עבדית או מא מרועא קשיא אסגיתי עלך .2 shown in the analysis, the translator explains this enigmatic question by adding a protasis: ‘what good have I promised’ which makes more sense to the listener. he Aramaic translator is looking for ‘clarity of expression’433 and to gain readers’ attention. The Aramaic version does not simply ask ‘what have I done to you’ but also offers a specific background ‘what good have I promised to do for you and I did not do [it?]’ This intricate passage needs a logical analysis in order to be correctly read. While in v. 3a God questions the existence of broken promises on his part, in verses 3b-4 he explains that he has never provoked any harm to his people but, on the contrary, he is the one who brought them up from Egypt. The Targum aims to trigger a sense of thankfulness in their hearts by indirectly validating the common assumption that God keeps his promises. Verse 4 contains another explicative note introduced by the added The explicative note follows a specific pattern: naming of the prophet .תְלָתָה נְבִׁיַי phrase ,infinitive (presenting his or her action: teach ,לְ Moses, Aaron, Miriam), preposition) appease, teach), and subject of their mission (tradition/people/women). This comment refers to all aspects of human life by including interpersonal relations governed by judgment, religious life and family life.

.p. 619 כּול .Jastrow, 1903, p. 782, cf 428 429 Jastrow, 1903, p. 408. 430 Jastrow, 1903, p. 696. .to blaspheme, sharpen/scrape :חרף :Sokoloff, 1990, p. 215 and Jastrow, 1903, p. 505 431 .shame, rebuke, revilement חסוד :Jastrow, 1903, pp. 458 and 486 432 433 Sperber, 1973, p. 21.

136

הלא גבורן) Other notable changes are: (i) the introduction of a full sentence .3 מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־ to explain the enigmatic construction (אתעבידא לכון ממישר שטין עד בית גלגלא to present, to walk) קדם v. 5d); (ii) the replacement of the ambiguous verbal root) הַגִׁלְגָל to worship); (iii) the use of the) 434 פלח before; 6ac) with a more explicit equivalent stereotyped construction (‘x for y’) to clarify the ‘meaningful expression’ that the נפשי - יפְרִׁ בִׁטְנִׁי חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי ;ברי חלף חובי - בְכֹורִׁ יפִׁשְעִׁי listener might fail to notice435 (v. 7c iv) inserting words to specify the positive side envisioned (8b: not) ;(חיבוב מעי חלף חטאי .([judgement of righteousness] דין דקשוט but משפט any v. 9) MT does not imply that God himself communicates his) קֹול יְהוָה With .4 message. Nevertheless, the Targum points out this fact more clearly with the addition of This tendency to interpose a mediator between God and man is traced by Ahuva .נבייא Ho in Targum Zachariah.436

עמא דארעא is expanded in מַטֶה i) A generous expansion is present in v. 9 where) .5 in order to illustrate the suggestion of power. (i) In v. 10 the translator מלכא ושלטונא ושאר interpreting it as referring to ,דאית with הַאִׁש uses a disambiguation of the construction מתקלין is replaced through an entire relative clause מִׁרְ מָה there is/are). (iii) The word) אִׁש v.11). (iv) The Aramaic version expands the text by explaining that) דביה רברבין ודעדקין עתירהא מלן the rich men are full of violence because they fill their granary with violence (v. 12) אוצריהון חטוף

6. Verse 13 outlined in MT condensed very briefly the punishments. Consequently, עַל־ ,הַשְמֵם ,הַכֹותֶָך :the translator focuses the attention on the three words that codify them while the ,[מרע ומחא developed in] הַכֹותֶָך The expansion is operated only on .חַטֹאתֶָך infinitive] becomes an x-qetal] 437 הַשְמֵם) others go through a change in syntactical status .(דחבתא preposition and noun] to x-qetal] עַל־חַטֹאתֶָך ;438 צדי from

7. Verses 14-15 closely follow MT. The Aramaic version expands only the למרע is expanded in a waw-yiqtul וְיֶשְחֲָךבְקִׁרְ בֶָך sensitive points: (1) the obscure SNC it follows more closely) ותעצר ענבין ולא תשתי חמר into וְתִׁירֹוש וְֹלא תִׁשְתֶה־יָיִׁן (2) ;ויהי לך במעך

434 Jastrow, 1903, p. 1178 435 Sperber, 1973, p. 20. 436 Ho, 2009, p. 412. 437 Jastrow, 1903, p. 1597: the sense of the word evolves to [ stand still,] to be astonished, to be waste. .שמם .Jastrow, 1903, p. 1262: to be desolate. It translates the Hebr 438

137

חמר the process of winemaking from treading the grapes to obtaining the fresh wine .([יָיִׁן instead of]

4.4. Conclusion

Targum Micah 6 belongs to Alexander’s Targum type A, as the operated changes are mostly expansions which explain punctual facts perceived as obscure (cf. (c)). Substitutions correspond to secondary and insignificant clarification required by vocabulary changes in the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic (cf. (b) 3, 4).

The syntactical setting of the entire chapter closely follows the MT, diverging only when the latter proves unclear (v. 16). Moreover, the Aramaic version replicates verbal aspects and even closer relations, as shown in the case of the comparison (v. 2: x- participle). All in all, in this particular case, the Targumic Aramaic version is both a reliable translation of MT and an open window into the early Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible.

138

5. Final Discussion and Conclusions

This thesis was dedicated to performing a comparative analysis of the three main traditions of the Biblical text: Hebrew, Greek, and Targumic. While the composition of the Hebrew Bible is spread over several hundred years, the other two represent the renderings of the original Hebrew in its final stage, when its tradition of interpretation is less fluid.

All these three testimonies of the Bible are addressed to the chosen people of Israel. When the Septuagint and the Targum first appeared (IV-II century BCE), they were both directed to the Israel of diaspora. Before becoming the book of Christianity, the Septuagint was primarily meant for Jews in Egypt, but also received elsewhere in Greek-speaking Judaism. In turn, the Targum is supposed to translate the Bible for those living in the land of Israel or in Babylon but not skilled in Biblical Hebrew. All these elements (space, time, and readership) constitute the reasons for the differences that occurred between the Hebrew original and these later translations of the text.

Given the wide diversity of origin, scope and purpose, a comparative study needs to employ a similar methodology for all three witnesses so that the results obtained could be assessed with reasonable objectivity. The common methods of choice in this thesis are textual linguistics and textual criticism. The subsequent presentation will follow the chapter order in the thesis.

Chapter 2 was concentrated entirely on MT. The textual criticism analysis was performed on the Masoretic and Septuagint texts considering each of them as distinct witnesses of the same text. Regarding the MT, the analysis offered an identical critical text with the one present in the BHS and in A. Gelston. Also, it had allowed a clear delimitation of the textual choices which were important to the syntax and exegesis of ּומֶה־ the MT. For example, the analysis revealed that: (1) v. 5 contains the ellipsis of שִׁמְעּו מַטֶה the significance of the phrase (2) ;מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל before the enigmatic עָשִׁיתִׁי ,v. 9) is ‘listen the staff/rod and the one who appointed it’ (Ben-Zvi) not ‘listen) ּומִׁי יְעָדָּה v. 12) is not) אֲשֶר (tribe, and who appointed her still’ (cf. Andersen, Waltke, Hillers); (3 to be moved after v. 9 (against Smith (1912), Vuilleumier, and Mays); (4) the obscure ,(means ‘your emptiness’ (against Vuilleumier (hunger), Mays (semen יֶשְחֲָך hapax

139

is to be תפליט McKane (bowel blockage), Wolff (physical pain)); (5) the form interpreted as hifil not as piel (v. 14).

After a brief presentation of the textual-linguistic method, the thesis continued with a syntactical analysis which had closely followed Niccacci’s outline (2007). Building on an Selm’s research, the analysis revealed the existence of a motivated interrogative question in verses 3c-4 to account for the suspended causal phrase in the v. 4. In the subsequent section, the main concern was to identify how the most prominent commentaries explained differently passages in Micah 6. The comparison of their work with the results of the textual-linguistic method prompted the certitude that the latter has a coherent approach in poetic passages to (1) future indicative verbal constructs (x- yiqtol refers to future axis in v. 9ab), (2) to future volitive forms (cf. weyyiqtol form, v.1 and v. 16a) and (3) to past forms (cf. x-qatal in v. 9c and wayyiqtol in 16c). Also, (4) it keeps track of the word order and translates accordingly (cf. the heightened .(v.2b רִׁ יב position of

The last two sections in the second chapter presented the poetic devices in Micah 6 and a commentary. Besides employing classic poetic devices such as parallelism and the word-pair, Micah also makes good use of chiasmus (2cd, v. 4ab, 16ab), ellipsis (5c, 12), delayed identification (1a, 2c), hendiadys (7cd, 10, 13) and hyperbole (7ab).

The commentary brought together these different analyses of the text. It determined that the two poems are integral parts of a lawsuit genre in the larger sense of the term as they are simultaneously a protest and a dispute between God and Israel. Each of them is focused on one single person (poem I – God, poem II – people). All parts of a regular lawsuit are present (calling, witnesses, statement of the case, statement of the Law, sins, punishment and conlusion). od’s argumentation proves to be very elaborate and compelling as it describes the history of the relationship between him and his people; he employs one mode of argumentation (cf. reductio ad absurdum v. 3-4) and resorts to rhetorical questions (4-7). The vocabulary is charged with direct or alluded references to Exodus, the covenant between God and his people, and to common sins as idolatry, deceit, and lie.

The Septuagint version was the main focus of the third chapter. The textual critical analysis of Micah 6 evaluated the majority of the manuscripts present in Ziegler’s

140 critical apparatus and aimed to present an improved critical text. The Greek translator of Micah 6 offers both a literal translation and clarifications for the ambiguous passages. When the text is too corrupt, he does not hesitate to interpret by adding new elements, paraphrasing the MT or even by introducing his own interpretation.

as ὁ σχοῖνος. The Septuagint שִׁטִׁים The most striking interpretation of the text is that of realises that the text is talking about a crossing and could have assumed that it is about the crossing of the Jordan. Also, the translator must have known about the existence of Shittim as a location. Nevertheless, in my opinion, he refuses the easy reading and chooses the one that is more inclusive and refers to the whole Exodus history.

The last chapter focused on the analysis of the Targum Micah 6. It has establised that this is a type A translation which contains only a few minor textual differences. This, in turn, has allowed us to ascertain that (1) the Aramaic version replicates both the verbal forms and aspects of its Hebrew counterpart (cf. point [a]). Nevertheless, the Aramaic reveals more flexibility and thus an evolution in the usage of the verbal constructs where the Hebrew is bound by its main syntactical categories (qatal, weqatal, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, weyiqtol). (2) Moreover, the Targum makes a point of being as clear as possible in passages where the Hebrew verison is ambiguous. It looks for the closest the obscure or even ;(מכילן/אֵיפַת :synonym possible to explain a dead-word (cf. v.10 or even a (מלפין/תושיה :unknown terms are given a straightforward interpretation (v. 9 suggestions in MT ;(מַטֶה for MT מלכא ושלטונא ושאר עמא דארעא) list of interpretations - [MT] מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָ ל) become fully expressed clauses, with subject and predicate Tg]). (3) Last but not the least, the] הלא גבורן אתעבידא לכון ממישר שטין עד בית גלגלא Targum aims to edify and strengthen both people’s knowledge and religious feelings towards God. A good example is offered by verses 6:3-4, where the translation instructs the reader about the mission of the three prophets, everything being connected with thankfulness for what God has already done for them.

This parallel reading of Micah 6 has shown that, despite its inconsistencies, the Hebrew is coherent in the presentation of the Law. The LXX and the Targum read and even interpret this text according to their social and cultural setting. Moreover, it has confirmed that textual-linguistics is a valid method of interpretation and that future research on how the verbal constructs are employed in Aramaic is needed. All in all, the core message of these three versions of the Biblical is briefly summarized in Mic. 6:9:

141

‘He has told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord seeks from you, only to do justice, to love goodness and to walk humbly with your God’

142

Bibliograpy

Aitken James K., 'Σχοῖνος in the Septuagint', Vetus Testamentum 50, No. 4 (2000), 433- 44.

Alexander Philip S., 'Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures' in Mikra, edited by M. J. Mulder and Harry Sysling (Assen/Philadelphia: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1988).

———, ed. Targum, Targumim, edited by David Noel Freedman The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

Alfaro Juan I., Justice and Loyalty: A Commentary on the Book of Micah (Grand Rapids & Edinburgh: Eerdmans & Handsel Press, 1989).

Allen Leslie C., The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978).

Alonso Sch kel Luis, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome: PIB, 1988).

Alonso Sch kel Luis, and J. L. Sicre Diaz, Profetas (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1980).

Andersen I. Francis, and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, London: Doubleday, 2000).

Anderson W., 'A Study of Micah 6:1-8', Scottish Journal of Theology 4, (1951), 191-97.

Avishur Yitzhak, 'Pairs of Synonymous Words in the Construct State (and in Appositional Hendiadys) in Biblical Hebrew', Semitics 1-2, (1971-72), 17-81.

Bagster Samuel, The Analytical Greek Lexicon (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, 1852).

Barthélemy Dominique, Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament (OBO 50/3; Fribourg, ttingen: Editions Universitaires, andenhoeck uprecht, 1992).

Ben Zvi Ehud, Micah (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2000).

Berlin Adele, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985).

Blass Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961).

Botterweck G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds. Grande lessico dell’Antico Testamento Vol. IX, (Brescia: Paideia, 2009).

Bottini . Claudio, 'Scheda bio‒bibliografica di Alviero Niccacci' in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, edited by Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini

143

(Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011).

Brown Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown‒Driver‒Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

Burkitt F. C., 'Micah 6 and 7 a Northern Prophecy', Journal of Biblical Literature 45, No. 1-2 (1926), 159-61.

Cassuto Umberto, The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1971).

Cathcart Kevin J., and Robert P. Gordon, The Targums of the Minor Prophets (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989).

Collin Matthieu, 'Recherche sur l'histoire textuelle du prophète Michée', Vetus Testamentum 21, (1971), 281-97.

Cuffey Kenneth H., The Coherence of Micah: A Review of the Proposals and a New Interpretation (Doctoral Thesis: Drew University, 1987).

Dalman Gustaf Hermann, Grammatik des j disch‒pal stinischen Aram isch (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905).

———, Aram isch‒neuhebr isches Handw rterbuch u Targum, Talmud und Midrasch (Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann Verlag, 1922).

Dawes S. B., 'Walking Humbly: Micah 6:8 Revisited', Scottish Journal of Theology 41, (1988), 331-39.

Dictionary Oxford English, translation (Oxford University Press).

Driver G. R., 'Linguistic and Textual Problems: Minor Prophets II', The Journal of Theological Studies 39, No. 155 (April 1, 1938), 260-73.

Dwight Daniels R., 'Is There a 'Prophetic Lawsuit' Genre?', Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99, (1987), 339-60.

Eissfeldt Otto, The Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966).

Ewald Heinrich A. von, Die Dichter des Alten Bundes, ol. 2 ( ttingen: andenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1866).

Fern ndez Marcos Natalio, and Wilfred . E. Watson, The Septuagint in Context (Leiden: Brill, 2000).

Fitzmyer Joseph A., 'Phases of the Aramaic Language' in A Wandering Aramean: collected Aramaic essays (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979).

Flesher Paul V. M., and Bruce Chilton, The Targums (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

144

Geiger Gregor, and Massimo Pazzini, eds. Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011).

Gelston A., Introduction and Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010).

Gordon R.P., ''Converse Translation' in the Targums and Beyond', Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 10, No. 19 (1999), 3-21.

Goshen-Gottstein Moshe H., 'The Language of Targum Onqelos and the Model of Literary Diglossia in Aramaic', Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37, No. 2 (1978), 169- 79.

,'in the Old Testament תּושִׁיָה Grimm Karl J., 'The Meaning and Etymology of the Word Journal of the American Oriental Society 22, (1901), 35-44.

Guillemette P., and M. Brisebois, Introduzione ai metodi storico-critici (Roma: Borla, 1990).

Hagstrom David G., The Coherence of the Book of Micah (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

Harl Marguerite, 'Les divergences entre la Septante et le texte massorétique' in La Bible grecque des Septante, edited by G. Dorival, Marguerite Harl and Olivier Munnich Initiation au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988).

Harvey Julien, Le plaidoyer prophétique contre Isra l apr s la rupture de l alliance (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1967).

Haupt Paul, 'The Book of Micah', The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 27, (1910), 1-63.

Hillers Delbert, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).

Ho Ahuva, The Targum of Zephaniah: Manuscripts and Commentary (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009).

Hobbs Ray T., 'Reflections on Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations', Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 501-03.

Holladay William, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids/Leiden: Eerdmans/Brill, 1988).

Hoonaker Albin van, Les douze petits prophèts (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1908).

Horton Robert F., The Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1906).

Huffmon H. B., 'The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets', Journal of Biblical Literature 78, (1959), 285-89.

145

Jacobs Mignon R., The Conceptual Coherence of the Book of Micah (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

———, 'Bridging the Times: Trends in Micah Studies since 1985', Currents in Biblical Research 4, No. 3 (June 2006), 293-329.

Jastrow Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim (London: Luzac&Co., 1903).

Jellicoe Sidney, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).

Joosten Jan, 'A Neglected ule and Its Exceptions: On Non‒ olitive yiqtol in Clause‒ Initial Position' in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, edited by Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011).

Jo on Paul, and . Muraoka, A grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006).

Keil Carl F., and F. Delitzsch, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark/Hendrickson, 1871/2006).

Klein M. L., 'Converse Translation: A Targumic Technique', Biblica 57, (1976), 515-37.

a Pseudo‒anti‒anthropomorhpism in the argums', The :קדם The Preposition' ,——— Journal of Theological Studies XXX, No. 2 (1979), 502-07.

Kooij Arie Van der, 'Some Remarks on the Analysis of the Interpretative Character of Targum Jonathan to the Prophets, with particular attention to Targum Isaiah XXIII' in Dutch Studies in the Targum, edited by I. E. Zwiep and A. Kuyt (Amsterdam: Juda Palache Institute, 1993).

Kutscher Edward Yechezkel, 'The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon' in Aspects of the Dead Sea scrolls; Scripta Hierosolymitana, Vol.4, edited by Chaim Rabin and Yigael Yadin (Jerusalem: Magnes‒Press, 1965).

Lampe G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).

Lemche Pete N., 'Kings and Clients: On Loyalty Between the Ruler and the Ruled in Ancient 'Israel'', Semeia 66, (1994), 119-32.

Leroy Marc, La formation du livre des quatre: Création théologico-littéraire en Juda durant l’époque néo-babylonienne (Jerusalem: École Biblique, [course support] 2011).

Liddell Henry George, Robert Scott, P. G. W. Glare, and A. A. Thompson, Greek‒ English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches', Journal of Biblical ריב Limburg James, 'The Root Literature 88, No. 3 (1969), 291-304.

Lindblom Johannes C., Micha: literarisch untersucht ( bo: bo Akademi, 1929).

Marti Karl, Das Dodekapropheton ( bingen: Mohr, 190 ).

146

Mays James Luther, Micah: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1976).

Mayser Edwin, and Hans Schmoll, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolem er eit, Vol. 1, I Teil (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1970).

McKane William, The Book of Micah: Introduction and Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).

Messina Paolo, Il sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico. Un approccio linguistico‒ testuale (Disertatio ad Licentiam, Jerusalem: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 2011).

———, 'Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico: Un approccio linguistico‒testuale' in Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ, edited by Gregor Geiger and Massimo Pazzini (Milano/Jerusalem: Edizioni Terra Santa, Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 78, 2011).

Munnich Olivier, 'Le texte de la Septante' in La Bible grecque des Septante, edited by G. Dorival, Marguerite Harl and Olivier Munnich (Paris: Cerf, 1988).

Muraoka Takamitsu, A Greek‒English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Twelve Prophets (Louvain: Peeters, 1993).

Niccacci Alviero, Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum‒Analecta 23, 1986).

———, 'A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence', Liber Annuus 37, (1987), 7-19.

———, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (Sheffield: JSOT Press, JSOTSS 86, 1990).

———, 'Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry', Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22, No. 74 (June 1, 1997 1997), 77-93.

———, 'Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi', Liber Annuus 51 (2001), 55-107.

———, 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry' in Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting, edited by S. E. Fassberg and A. Hurviz (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Press, 2006).

———, 'Il libro del profeta Michea. Testo traduzione composizione senso', Liber Annuus 57, (2007), 83-161.

Petersen David L., and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

in Job 9:31', Journal of Biblical Literature 83, No. 3 שַ חַת Pope Marvin H., 'The Word (1964), 269-78.

Rahlfs Alfred, and Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta: id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).

147

Renaud Bernard, La formation du Livre de Michée: tradition et actualisation (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977).

Ribera Joseph, 'The Targum: From Translation to Interpretation' in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context', edited by Derek Robert George Beattie and Martin McNamara (Sheffield: JSOT Press [JSOTSS 166], 1994).

ichelle Matthieu, 'Un triptyque au cœur du livre de Michee (Mi -5)', Vetus Testamentum 62, No. 2 (2012), 232-47.

Robinson Theodore H., Die w lf kleinen Propheten: Hosea bis Micha ( bingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1954).

Selms A. van, 'Motivated Interrogative Sentences in Biblical Hebrew', Semitics 2, (1971-1972), pp.143-49.

———, 'Motivated Interrogative Sentences in the Book of Job', Semitics 6, (1978), pp. 28- 35.

Sharpe John, Micah: A New Translation (Cambridge, London & Oxford: J. Hall & Son, 1876).

Smith J. M. Powis, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912).

Smith John Merlin Powis, William Hayes Ward, and Julius A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1928).

Smith Ralph L., Micah-Malachi (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1984).

Smyth Herbert Weir, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1956).

Sokoloff Michael, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University-Press, 1990).

Sperber Alexander, The Bible in Aramaic. The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (Leiden: Brill, 1962).

———, The Bible in Aramaic. The Targum and the Hebrew Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1973).

Stade Bernhard, 'Bemerkungen über das Buch Micha', ZAW 1, (1881), 161–72.

———, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Berlin: Grote, 1888).

———, 'Streiflichter auf die Entstehung der jetzigen Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Prophetenschriften', ZAW 23, (1903), 153–71.

Stansell Gary, Micah and Isaiah: A Form and Tradition Historical Comparison (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

148

Stevenson William Barron, Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

Swete Henry Barclay, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, Vol. 3 (Cambridge: University Press, 1905).

Tal Abraham, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and Its Position within the Aramaic Dialects ( el‒Aviv: el‒Aviv University, 1975 (in Hebrew)).

Taylor John, The Massoretic Text and the Ancient Versions of the Book of Micah (London: Williams and Norgate, 1891).

Thackeray H. St John, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, Vol. I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909).

Thayer Joseph Henry, A Greek‒English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1889/1974).

Torczyner H., 'Bibliographische Anzeigen: Wilhelm Gesenius' Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch', Zeitschriften der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 70, (1916), 555-62.

Tucker G. M., 'Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon' in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, edited by George W. Coats and Burke O. Long (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).

Vawter Bruce, Amos, Hosea, Micah (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981).

Vermes G., Scripture and tradition in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1973).

uilleumier ené, Michée ( en ve: Labor et Fides, 1990).

Waltke Bruce K., A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids, London: Eerdmans, 2007).

Waltke Bruce K., and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990).

Watson Wilfred G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984).

———, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994).

Watts J. D. W., 'Superscriptions and Incipits in the Book of the Twelve' in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve, edited by James Nogalski and Marvin A. Sweeney (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000).

Weeks Stuart, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1-9 (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Weinrich Harald, Tempus Besprochene und er hlte Welt (2nd edition; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971).

149

———, Tempus. Le funzioni dei tempi nel testo (Bologna: Societa Editrice il Mulino, 1978).

Wellhausen Julius, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878).

Westermann Claus, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967).

Wolff Hans W., Micha (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982).

———, Micah: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990).

Woude A. S. van der, 'Micah in Dispute with the Pseudo‒Prophets', Vetus Testamentum 19, No. 2 (1969), 244-60.

———, 'Deutero‒Micha, ein Prophet aus Nord‒Israel?', Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 25, (1971), 365-78.

Würthwein E., 'Der Ursprung der prophetischen Gerichtsrede', Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 49, (1952), 1-16.

Ziegler Joseph, Duodecim prophetae (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967).

150

ANNEX 1: Scheme of Syntactical Construct in Biblical Hebrew

Narrative passages

Prelude Main level of Secondary Level of communication or communication or Background Foreground (waw) x-QATAL WAYYIQTOL (waw) x-QATAL (+ WAYYIQTOL) or negation (for anteriority, simultaneity, contrast, emphasis or circumstance) (waw) x-YIQTOL QATAL+ וֹלא waw) x-YIQTOL) weQATAL (repetitive or habitual action; future prevision – future in the past) weQATAL (continues with waw x-YIQTOL) (repetitive action/description) SNC SNC (simultaneity)

Direct speech

Temporal Main level of communication or Foreground Secondary Level of communication or Axis Background Past x-QATAL WAYYIQTOL continuative x-QATAL coordination, both foreground: oral narration (anteriority: retrieved info) x-YIQTOL (future prevision) weQATAL (future prevision) SNC (simultaneity) Present SNC (with/without participle) SNC word order: PREDICATE – SUBJECT word order: SUBJECT – PREDICATE Future SNC weQATAL continuative or YIQTOL + וֹלא Indicative x-YIQTOL (initial) weQATAL continuative or x-YIQTOL YIQTOL + וֹלא Future IMPERATIVE weYIQTOL (both foreground) x-IMPERATIVE Volitive (x-) YIQTOL weYIQTOL (both foreground) or (jussive/cohortative) x-YIQTOL Note: IMPERATIVE weYIQ OL = purpose (‘in order to’) (both forms on FOREGROUND) IMPERATIVE weQA AL = consequence (‘thus, therefore’) (FOREGROUND) (BACKGROUND)

Note: this is a reproduction of a tables from Niccacci, 1990, p. 20 and 'The Biblical Verbal System in Poetry', p. 248.

151

Negations

TEMPORAL AXIS Positive form Negative Form LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

QATAL וֹלא NARRATIVE AND DIRECT SPEECH WAYYIQTOL MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

QATAL ֹלא NARRATIVE AND DIRECT SPEECH x-QATAL (waw) x BACKGROUND

QATAL ֹלא PAST (DIRECT SPEECH) (x)-QATAL MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

YIQTOL ֹלא NARRATIVE OR FUTURE INDICATIVE x-YIQTOL (waw-) x SECOND LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

YIQTOL ֹלא FUTURE INDICATIVE initial x-YIQTOL MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION YIQTOL אל FUTURE VOLITIVE (DIRECT SPEECH ) initial YIQTOL MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

YIQTOL אל FUTURE VOLITIVE (DIRECT SPEECH ) x-YIQTOL (waw) x SECOND LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION YIQTOL ואל FUTURE VOLITIVE (DIRECT SPEECH) weYIQTOL SECOND LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

YIQTOL וֹלא NARRATIVE FUTURE INDICATIVE weQATAL SECOND MAIN LEVEL LEVEL

152

ANNEX 2: Micah 6 Syntactical Scheme SECONDARY LEVEL OF MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION TEMPORAL AXIS COMMUNICATION (SUBORDINATION) (REGENT) IMP FUTURE VOLITIVE 1 שִׁמְעּו־נָא אֵת אֲשֶר־יְהוָה אֹמֵ ר IMP FUTURE VOLITIVE קּום

IMP FUTURE VOLITIVE רִׁ יב אֶת־הֶהָרִׁ ים וְתִׁשְמַעְנָה הַגְבָעֹות קֹולֶ ָך׃ weYIQTOL CONTINUATIVE

2 IMP FUTURE VOLITIVE שִׁמְעּוהָרִׁ ים אֶת־רִׁ יב יְהוָה וְהָאֵתָנִׁים ִ֣מ ֹ ְס ֵדי ֵָ֑א ֶרץ SNC FUTURE INDICATIVE כִׁי רִׁ יב לַיהוָה עִׁם־עַמֹו X-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE וְעִׁם־יִׁשְרָ אֵל יִׁתְוַכָ ח׃ X-QATAL PAST 3עַמִׁי מֶה־עָשִׁ י ִׁתי ְל ָָ֖ך X-QATAL PAST ּו ִָ֣מה ֶה ְל ֵא ִֵׁ֑תיָך

IMP FUTURE VOLITIVE עֲנֵה בִׁ י׃

x-QATAL PAST 4 כִׁיהֶעֱלִׁת֙יָך ץמֵאֶרֶ מִׁצְרַ יִׁם x-QATAL PAST ּומִׁבֵיתעֲבָדִׁים פְדִׁיתִׁ יָך WAYYIQTOL CONTINUATIVE וָאֶשְלַחלְפָנֶיָך אֶת־מֹשֶה ַאהֲרֹן ּומִׁרְ יָם׃ 5 x -IMPERATIVE עַמִׁי זְכָר־נָא

X-QATAL PAST מַה־יָעַץ בָלָק מֶלְֶךמֹוָאב ּומֶה־עָנָה ֹואֹת בִׁ לְעָםבֶן־בְעֹור מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָ ל X-QATAL PAST לְמַעַן דַעַתצִׁדְקֹות יְהוָ ה׃

x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE 6בַמָה אֲקַדֵם יְהוָ ה YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE אִׁכַף לֵאֹלהֵי מָרֹום

x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE הַאֲקַדְמֶ ּנּו בְעֹולֹות בַעֲגָלִׁים בְנֵי שָנָה׃

7 x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE ֲהיִׁ ְר ֶ֤צה יְה ָוה ְבַא ְל ֵפי ֵאי ִׁלים ְב ִׁר ְבבֹות נַ ֲח ֵלי־ ָש מֶן x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE הַאֶתֵן בְכֹורִׁ י פִׁשְעִׁי יפְרִׁ בִׁטְנִׁי חַטַאת נַפְשִׁ י׃ 8 QATAL PAST ִׁה ִׁגיד ְל ָָ֛ך ָא ָד ם מַה־טֹוב SNC ּומָה־יְהוָה דֹורֵ שמִׁמְָך SNC כִׁי אִׁם־עֲשֹות מִׁשְפָט וְַאהֲבַת חֶ סֶד

וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶתעִׁם־אֱֹלהֶ יָך׃ פ

9 x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE קֹול יְהוָהלָעִׁיר יִׁקְרָ א x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE וְתּושִׁיָה יִׁרְ אֶה שְמֶ ָך IMP FUTURE VOLITIVE ִׁש ְמ ֵ֥עּו ַמ ֶָ֖טה X-QATAL ּומִׁי יְעָדָ ּה׃ SNC PRESENT 10 עֹוד הַאִׁש בֵית רָ שָע אֹצְרֹות רֶ שַע וְאֵיפַת רָ זֹון זְעּומָ ה׃ 11 x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE הַאֶזְכֶה בְמֹאזְנֵי רֶ שַע ּובְכִׁיס ַאבְנֵי מִׁרְ מָ ה׃ X-QATAL PAST 12 אֲשֶר עֲשִׁירֶ יהָ מָלְאּו חָמָ ס X-QATAL PAST וְיֹשְבֶיהָ דִׁבְרּו־שָ קֶר

SNC ּולְשֹונָם רְ מִׁיָה בְפִׁיהֶ ם׃

153

MICAH 6 SYNTACTICAL SCHEME

SECONDARY LEVEL OF MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION TEMPORAL AXIS COMMUNICATION (REGENT) (SUBORDINATION) x-QATAL PAST 13וְגַם־אֲנִׁי הֶחֱלֵיתִׁיהַכֹותֶָך הַשְמֵם עַל־חַטֹאתֶ ָך׃ 14 x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE אַתָה תֹאכַל וְֹלא תִׁשְ בָ ע YIQTOL + ְו ִֹ֣לא

SNC וְיֶשְחֲָך בְקִׁרְ בֶ ָך weYIQTOL וְתַסֵג YIQTOL + ְו ִֹ֣לא וְֹלא תַפְלִׁ יט

X-YIQTOL וַאֲשֶר תְפַלֵ ט לַחֶרֶ ב אֶתֵ ן׃ X-YIQTOL

15 x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE אַתָ ה תִׁזְרַ ע YIQTOL FUTURE + ְו ִֹ֣לא וְֹלא תִׁקְצֹור

x-YIQTOL FUTURE INDICATIVE אַתָהתִׁדְרֶֹֽ ְך־זַיִׁת YIQTOL FUTURE + ְו ִֹ֣לא וְֹלא־תָסּוְך שֶ מֶן וְתִׁירֹוש YIQTOL + ְו ִֹ֣לא וְֹלא תִׁשְתֶה־יָיִׁן׃

WEYIQTOL FUTURE 16 וְיִׁשְתַמֵרחֻקֹות עָמְרִׁ י וְכֹל מַעֲשֵה בֵית־ַאחְָאב WAYYIQTOL וַתֵלְכּו בְמֶֹֽעֲצֹותָ ם לְמַעַן תִׁתִׁי אֹתְָך לְשַמָה וְיֹשְבֶ יהָ לִׁשְרֵ קָ ה

X-YIQTOL וְחֶרְ פַתעַמִׁי תִׁשָ אּו׃ פ

154

ANNEX 3: Poetic devices Micah 6:1-8

Strophe Poetic devices

1שִׁמְעּו־נָא אֵ ת אֲ שֶר־יְהוָה אֹמֵ ר 1abc Parallel exhortation 1bc קּום רִׁ יב אֶת־הֶהָרִׁ ים Delayed identification 1a -2c וְתִׁשְמַ עְ נָה הַגְבָעֹות קֹולֶ ָך׃ 2 שִׁמְעּו הָרִׁ ים אֶת־רִׁ יב יְהוָ ה 2abcd Chiasmus 2cd וְהָאֵתָנִׁים מֹסְדֵי ָארֶ ץ Paradigmatic parallelism כִׁירִׁ יב לַיהוָה עִׁם־עַמֹו וְעִׁם־יִׁשְרָ אֵ ל יִׁתְוַכָ ח׃ 3 עַמִׁי מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי לְָך 3ab Parallel questions 3ab One ּומָה הֶלְאֵתִׁיָך עֲנֵה בִׁ י׃ motivated Chiasmus 4ab 4 כִׁיהֶעֱלִׁתִׁ יָך ץמֵאֶרֶ מִׁצְרַ יִׁם interrogative Parallel 4abc ּומִׁבֵ ית עֲבָדִׁים פְדִׁיתִׁ יָך -question 3b וָאֶשְלַחלְפָנֶיָך אֶת־מֹשֶה ַאהֲרֹן 4abc questions ּומִׁרְ יָם׃ עַמִׁי זְכָר־ מַה־יָעַץ בָלָק מֶלְֶךמֹוָאב 5abcd Delayed identification 5a-5b 3ab // 5abc 5 נָא Ellipsis in 5c ּומֶה־עָנָה אֹתֹו בִׁ לְעָם בֶן־בְעֹור מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל לְמַעַן דַעַתצִׁדְקֹות יְהוָ ה׃ 6 בַמָה אֲקַדֵם יְהוָ ה 6abcd Eight אִׁכַף לֵאֹלהֵי מָרֹום Rhetorical הַאֲקַדְמֶּנּו בְעֹולֹות questions בַעֲגָלִׁ ים בְנֵי שָנָה׃ 7 הֲיִׁרְ צֶה יְהוָ ה בְַאלְפֵי אֵילִׁ ים 7abcd Double duty modifier in 7ab בְרִׁ בְבֹות נַחֲלֵי־שָ מֶן and 7cd הַאֶתֵן בְכֹורִׁ יפִׁשְעִׁ י Hyperbolic word pair 7ab Paradigmatic פְרִׁ יבִׁטְנִׁי חַטַ את נַפְשִׁ י׃ Hendiadys 7cd parallelism Parallelism 7c//7d 8 הִׁגִׁיד לְָך ָאדָ ם מַה־טֹוב 8ab Paradigmatic ּומָה־יְהוָה דֹורֵ שמִׁמְָך parallelism כִׁי אִׁם־עֲשֹות מִׁשְפָט Incomplete Parallelism וְַאהֲבַת חֶ סֶד 8cde 8a//8b//8c וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶתעִׁם־אֱֹלהֶ יָך׃ פ

155

ANNEX 4: Poem division Micah 6

No Strophe Strophe strophe 1 1abc 9abc

2 Poem I 2abcd 10 ab Poem II 6:1-8 6:9-16 3 3ab 11ab

4 4abc 12 abc

5 5 abcd 13 ab

6 6 abcd 14 abcd

7 7 abcd 15 abc

8 8ab 16 abc

9 8cde 16def

156

ANNEX 5: Scheme of Syntactical Construct in Biblical Aramaic

Narrative passages Background/SLC Foreground / FLC Background/SLC (before initiation of the FLC) Initial form Initial form x-qetal MSM (x-)qetal (x-)participle Continuative forms Continuative forms x-qetal →qetal*c x-qetal →qetal*c qetal x-yiqtul x-yiqtul participle x-participle waw-yiqtul SNC x-participle SNC

Direct Speech Temporal Axis Foreground/FLC Background SLC Past Initial form x-qetal →qetal*c x-qetal x-yiqtul Continuative forms x-participle→ participle*c qetal SNC→ participle*c participle Present Initial form x-participle→ participle*c x-participle SNC→ participle*c SNC Continuative forms participle SNC Future Indicative Initial form x-yiqtul→ yiqtul*c x-yiqtul x-qetal x-participle Continuative forms SNC yiqtul Future Volitive Initial form x-IMP (x-)IMP x-yiqtul (short form) (x-)yiqtul (short form) Continuative forms yiqtul (short form) IMP

157

ANNEX 6: Synoptic View of MT and BA Syntactical Forms

TARUGM MICAH 6 FORMS BHS MICAH 6 1 1 שִׁמְעּו־נָא אֵת אֲשֶר־יְהוָה אֹמֵר IMP IMP שמעו כען ית דיוי אמר

קּום IMP IMP קום

רִׁ יב אֶת־הֶהָרִׁ ים IMP IMP דין עם טוריא

וְתִׁשְמַעְנָה הַגְבָעֹות קֹולֶָך׃ WWA-YIQTUL WEYIQTOL וישמען רמתא קלך

2 2 שִׁמְעּו הָרִׁ ים אֶת־רִׁ יב יְהוָה וְהָאֵתָנִׁים מֹסְדֵי ָארֶ ץ IMP IMP שמעו טוריא ית דינא דיוי ועקריא

יסודי ארעא

כִׁי רִׁ יב לַיהוָה עִׁם־עַמֹו SNC SNC ארי דינא קדם יוי עם עמיה

וְעִׁם־יִׁשְרָ אֵל יִׁתְוַכָח׃ X-PARTICIPLE X-YIQTOL ועם בית ישראל עביד תוכיחא

3 3 עַמִׁי מֶה־עָשִׁיתִׁי לְָך X-QETAL X-QATAL עמי מא טבא אמרית למעבד לך

QETAL-לָא-WAW ולא עבדית

ּו ִָ֣מה הֶלְאֵתִׁיָך X-QETAL X-QATAL או מא מרועא קשיא אסגיתי עלך

ֲע ֵנֵ֥ה בִׁ ֶֽי׃ IMP IMP אסהיד קדמי 4 4 כִׁי הֶעֱלִׁתִׁיָך מֵאֶרֶ ץ מִׁצְרַ יִׁם X-QETAL X-QATAL ארי אסיקתך מארעא דמצרים

ּומִׁבֵית עֲבָדִׁים פְדִׁיתִׁיָך X-QETAL X-QATAL ומבית עבדותא פרקתך

וָאֶשְלַח לְפָנֶיָך אֶת־מֹשֶה ַאהֲרֹן ּומִׁרְ יָם׃ WAW-QETAL WAYYIQTOL ושלחית קדמך תלתה נביי

משה לאלפא מסרת ודינין

אהרן לכפרא על עמא

ומרים לאוראה לנשיא

5 5 עַמִׁי זְכָר־נָא X-IMP X-IMP עמי אידכר כען

מַה־יָעַץ בָלָק מֶלְֶך מֹוָאב X-QETAL X-QATAL מא מלך בלק מלכא דמואב

ּומֶה־עָנָה אֹתֹו ִׁב ְל ִָ֣עם בֶן־בְעֹור X-QETAL X-QATAL ומא אתיב יתיה בלעם בר בעור

מִׁן־הַשִׁטִׁים עַד־הַגִׁלְגָל לְמַעַן דַעַת צִׁדְקֹות יְהוָ ֶֽה׃ X-QETAL הלא גבורן אתעבידא לכון ממישר

שטין עד בית גלגלא בדיל למדע זכותא דיוי 6 6 בַמָה אֲקַדֵם יְהוָה X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL במא אפלח קדם יוי

אִׁכַף לֵאֹלהֵי מָרֹום YIQTUL YIQTOL אשתעבד לאלהא דשכינתיה בשמי מרומא

ַה ֲא ַק ְד ִֶ֣מּנּו בְעֹולִ֔ ֹות ַב ֲעגָ ִָׁ֖לים ְב ֵנֵ֥י שָנָ ֶֽה׃ X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL האפלח קדמוהי בעלוון בעגלין בני שנא

7 7 הֲיִׁרְ צֶה יְהוָה בְַאלְפֵי אֵילִׁים בְרִׁ בְבֹות נַחֲלֵי־שָמֶן X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL היתרעי יוי באלפי דכרין ברבות

נחלין דמשח

הַאֶתֵן בְכֹורִׁ י פִׁשְעִׁי פְרִׁ י בִׁטְנִׁי חַטַאת נַפְשִׁי X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL האתין ברי חלף חובי חיבוב

מעי חלף חטאי נפשי

8 8 הִׁגִׁיד לְָך ָאדָם QETAL QATAL אתחוה לך אנשא

מַה־טֹוב SNC SNC מא טב

ּומָה־יְהוָה דֹורֵ ש מִׁמְָך X-PARTICIPLE SNC ומא יוי תבע מינך

כִׁי אִׁם־עֲשֹות מִׁשְפָט (INFINITIVE (3 INFINITIVES אלהין למעבד דין דקשוט

וְַאהֲבַת חֶסֶד WAW-PARTICIPLE ומרחם גמילות חסדא

וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִׁם־אֱֹלהֶיָך׃ פ IMP והוי צניע להלכא בדחלתא דאלהך

9 9 קֹול יְהוָה לָעִׁיר יִׁקְרָ א X-PARTICIPLE X-YIQTOL קל נבייא דיוי על קרתא מכלן

158

וְתּושִׁיָה יִׁרְ אֶה שְמֶָך X-PARTICIPLE X-YIQTOL ומלפין דחלין לשמך

שִׁמְעּו מַטֶה IMP IMP FV שמע מלכא ושלטונא ושאר עמא דארעא

ּומִׁי יְעָדָּה׃ X-QATAL 10 10 עֹוד הַאִׁש בֵית רָ שָע אֹצְרֹות רֶ שַע וְאֵיפַת רָ זֹון SNC SNC עוד דאית בית רשיעא אוצרין

זְעּומָ ֶֽה׃ דרשע ומכילן דשקר מיתין לוט 11 11 הַאֶזְכֶה בְמֹאזְנֵי רֶ שַע ּובְכִׁיס ַאבְנֵי מִׁרְ מָה׃ X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL היזכון במוזנוון דרשע ובכיס

X-QETAL- דִׁי דביה מתקלין רברבין ודעדקין 12 12 אֲשֶר עֲשִׁירֶ יהָ מָלְאּו חָמָס X-PARTICIPLE X-QATAL דעתירהא מלן אוצריהון חטוף

וְיֹשְבֶיהָ דִׁבְרּו־שָקֶר SNC X-QATAL ויתבהא ממללין שקר

ּולְשֹונָם רְ מִׁיָה בְפִׁיהֶם׃ X-QETAL SNC ולישנהון נכלין בפומהון

13 13 וְגַם־אֲנִׁי הֶחֱלֵיתִׁי הַכֹותֶָך הַשְמֵם עַל־חַטֹאתֶָך׃ X-QETAL X-QATAL ואף אנא איתיתי עלך מרע ומחא

QETAL אצדינך

X-QETAL על דחבתא

14 14 אַתָה תֹאכַל X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL את תיכול

וְֹלא תִׁשְבָע YIQTOL+וְֹלא YIQTUL-לָא-WAW ולא תסבע

וְיֶשְחֲָך בְקִׁרְ בֶָך WAW-YIQTUL SNC ויהי לך למרע במעך

וְתַסֵ ג WAW-YIQTUL WEYIQTOL ותדביק

וְֹלא תַפְלִׁיט YIQTOL+וְֹלא YIQTUL-לָא-WAW וְלָא תְשֵיזֵיב

וַאֲשֶר תְפַלֵט X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL וְדִׁשְתֵיזַיִׁב

לַחֶרֶ ב אֶתֵן׃ X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL לְחַרִׁ בָא ַאמְסַר

15 15 אַתָה תִׁזְרַ ע X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL את תזרע

ְו ִֹ֣לא תִׁקְצֹור YIQTOL+וְֹלא YIQTUL-לָא-WAW ולא תחצוד

אַתָה תִׁדְרֶֹֽ ְך־זַיִׁת X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL את תבדיר זיתין

וְֹלא־תָסּוְך שֶמֶן YIQTOL+וְֹלא YIQTUL-לָא-WAW ולא תשוף משח

וְתִׁירֹוש WAW-YIQTUL ותעצר ענבין

וְֹלא תִׁשְתֶה־יָיִׁן׃ YIQTOL+וְֹלא YIQTUL-לָא-WAW ולא תשתי חמר

16 16 וְיִׁשְתַמֵר חֻקֹות עָמְרִׁ י X-QETAL WEYIQTOL על דנטרתון גזירת בית עמרי

וְכֹל מַעֲשֵה בֵית־ַאחְָאב WAW-QETAL ועבדתון עובדי בית אחאב

וַתֵלְכּו בְמֶֹֽעֲצֹותָם WAW-QETAL WAYYIQTOL והליכתון בנמוסיהון

לְמַעַן תִׁתִׁי אֹתְָך לְשַמָה INFINITIVE INFINITIVE בדיל לממסר יתך לצדו

וְיֹשְבֶיהָ לִׁשְרֵ קָה INFINITIVE ויתבהא לאשתממו

וְחֶרְ פַת עַמִׁי תִׁשָאּו׃ פ WAW-X-YIQTUL X-YIQTOL וחסודי עמי תקבלון

159

ANNEX 7: Micah 6 - Tabulation verse Common words within the poem I Common words with 9-16 הלך טָאת נתן קֹול יעצ שִׁמְעּו interog הַ בֶן מִׁן בֶֽ עֲנֵה מֶה עִׁם עַמ ל כִׁי קֹולֶָך הָרִׁ ים רִׁ יב אֹלהֵ יְהוָה אֵת נָא שִׁמְעּו word שִׁמְעּו יְהוָה אֵת נָא שִׁמְעּו 1a הָרִׁ ים רִׁ יב 1b קֹול שִׁמְעּו קֹולֶָך 1c הָרִׁ ים רִׁ יב יְהוָה אֵת שִׁמְעּו 2a 2b עִׁם עַמ לַ כִׁי רִׁ יב יְהוָה 2c עִׁם 2d מֶה עַמ לְ 3a בֶֽ עֲנֵה מֶה 3b מִׁן כִׁי 4a מִׁן 4b לְ 4c יָעַ ץ מֶה עַמ נָא 5a בֶן עֲנֵה מֶה 5b מִׁן 5c לְ יְהוָה 5d ב מֶה יְהוָה 6a לְ אֹלהֵ 6b interog הַ ב 6c בֶן ב 6d הַ ב יְהוָה 7a interog ב 7b אֶתֵן הַ 7c interog חַטַאת 7d מֶה לְ 8a מִׁן מֶה יְהוָה 8b כִׁי 8c 8d לֶכֶת עִׁם אֱֹלהֶ 8e

160

verse Common words within the poem II Common words with 1-8 יעצ הלך טָאת שִׁמְעּו קֹול נתן תַפְלִׁ ט אַתָ ה וְֹלא interog הַ בְ רָ שָ ע בֵ ית לָ יְהוָה words מִׁ י קֹול לָ יְהוָה 9a 9b שִׁמְעּו מִׁ י 9c רָ שָ ע בֵ ית 10a 10b interog הַ בְ רֶ שַע 11a

11b 12a 12b בְ 12c 13a חַטֹאתֶ ָך 13b אַתָ ה וְֹלא 14a 14b תַפְלִׁט וְֹלא 14c אֶתֵ ן תַפְלִׁט 14d אַתָ ה וְֹלא 15a אַתָ ה וְֹלא 15b וְֹלא 15c 16a בֵ ית 16b בְמֹעֲצֹותָם וַתֵלְכּו בְ 16c תִׁתִׁ י לְ 16d לְ 16e 16f

161